5 ms·

To get to the so called "no driver at the wheel" driving you have to go through what you called "driver assist" stage, its a continuous improvement. So are you

by matz1 5y ago

To get to the so called "no driver at the wheel" driving you have to go through what you called "driver assist" stage, its a continuous improvement. So are you saying people accept it in the far from perfect driver stage now but won't accept it when it become so much improved "no driver at the wheel" stage ?

cogman10 5y ago
Correct. I'm saying that the "no driver at the wheel" stage must be flawless. I've seen some claims that it's "Good enough if it's x times better than a human driver" or "can drive n number of miles without an accident". However, both of those are not the metrics to measure. A "no driver at the wheel" package is good enough when it doesn't run over the neighbor's cat or Timmy on the street. Humans today make that mistake all the time, but that's not a mistake a driverless car can make and get away with. Consider, for example, Uber's killed pedestrian. Sure, it was a tough scenario and the driver wasn't paying attention. But the fact of the matter is everyone had the expectation that the Uber car would not hit that pedestrian even if they were really hard to see. Until that happens, nobody will accept "no driver at the wheel" cars... except maybe in tightly controlled routes/geofences. Otherwise, SDC will require a driver to be attentive at the wheel at all times. That is, telsa's FSD is a very long way away from being able to hit that "telsa taxi service" that elon has pitched. I doubt it can make it with the current sensor set (not enough redundancy).
- matz1 5y ago
  Well see, I personally accept and support far from perfect no driver at wheel car. I doubt I'm a minority.
  - cogman10 5y ago
    You say that now, will you say that when (not if) a driverless car kills a kid or animal that a human wouldn't? Were you ok with Uber's killing?
    - matz1 5y ago
      Human kills already, and yet certainly do not want human to be banned for driving. I too expect and accept that some accident caused by driverless car that kills kid/animal (that human wouldn't do) will happen (if not already happen). To expect otherwise will be unrealistic.

by matz1 5y ago

cogman10 5y ago

Correct. I'm saying that the "no driver at the wheel" stage must be flawless. I've seen some claims that it's "Good enough if it's x times better than a human driver" or "can drive n number of miles without an accident". However, both of those are not the metrics to measure. A "no driver at the wheel" package is good enough when it doesn't run over the neighbor's cat or Timmy on the street. Humans today make that mistake all the time, but that's not a mistake a driverless car can make and get away with. Consider, for example, Uber's killed pedestrian. Sure, it was a tough scenario and the driver wasn't paying attention. But the fact of the matter is everyone had the expectation that the Uber car would not hit that pedestrian even if they were really hard to see. Until that happens, nobody will accept "no driver at the wheel" cars... except maybe in tightly controlled routes/geofences. Otherwise, SDC will require a driver to be attentive at the wheel at all times. That is, telsa's FSD is a very long way away from being able to hit that "telsa taxi service" that elon has pitched. I doubt it can make it with the current sensor set (not enough redundancy).

matz1 5y ago
Well see, I personally accept and support far from perfect no driver at wheel car. I doubt I'm a minority.
- cogman10 5y ago
  You say that now, will you say that when (not if) a driverless car kills a kid or animal that a human wouldn't? Were you ok with Uber's killing?
  - matz1 5y ago
    Human kills already, and yet certainly do not want human to be banned for driving. I too expect and accept that some accident caused by driverless car that kills kid/animal (that human wouldn't do) will happen (if not already happen). To expect otherwise will be unrealistic.