9 ms·

I actually disagree. (And before you respond, please read my post because it’s not a trivial point.) The fact that an huge formal investigation happened with j

I actually disagree. (And before you respond, please read my post because it’s not a trivial point.) The fact that an huge formal investigation happened with just a single casualty is proof that it may actually be superior for safety in the long-term (when combined with feedback from regulators and government investigators). One death in conventional vehicles is irrelevant. But because of the high profile of Tesla’s technology, it garners a bunch of attention from the public and therefore regulators. This is PRECISELY the dynamic that led to the ridiculously safe airline record. The safer it is, the more that rare deaths will be investigated and the causes sussed out and fixed by industry and regulators together. Perhaps industry/Tesla/whoever hates the regulators and investigations. But I think they are precisely what will cause self driving to become ever safer, and eventually become as safe as industry/Tesla claims, safer than human drivers while also being cheap and ubiquitous. Just like airline travel today. A remarkable combination of safety and affordability. This might be the only way to ever do it. I don’t think the airline industry could’ve ever gotten to current levels of safety by testing everything on closed airfields and over empty land for hundreds of millions of flight hours before they had sufficient statistics to be equal to today. It can’t happen without regulators and enforcement, either.

3pt14159 5y ago
I largely agree with you, but I just wish regulators would start by only allowing these assist programs for people that are already known to be poor drivers. The elderly and convicted drunk drivers, for example. That way we could have the best of both worlds.
- lastofthemojito 5y ago
  Incentivizing drunk driving seems dangerous.
  - joshgrib 5y ago
    Requiring people to buy a special car/system to be able to drive doesn't seem like an incentive - it seems similar to the interlock system we currently require drunk drivers to purchase to be able to drive. If anything a driver monitoring system seems even better than the interlock system, for example you couldn't have your kids/friends blow for you to bypass it.
- unionpivo 5y ago
  I disagree. I would not put people who shoved poor judgment in situation, where they can further hurt other or themselves it. People like that are more likely not to pay attention and do other irresponsible things. Go with safest drivers first.
- Seanambers 5y ago
  Teslas Autopilot system is almost 10X safer than the average human driver already based on the latest 2021 Q1 numbers. https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/VehicleSafetyReport
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    That impressive claim narrows to approximately the noise floor if you compare to comparable drivers in comparable cars.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - ben_w 5y ago
    > In the 1st quarter, we registered one accident for every 4.19 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.05 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 978 thousand miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles. I think the comparison should be Tesla with/without AI, not Tesla/not-Tesla; so roughly either x2 or x4 depending on what the other active safety features do. It’s not nothing, but it’s much less than the current sales pitch — and the current sales pitch is itself the problem here, for many legislators.
    - Ajedi32 5y ago
      > we registered one accident for every 4.19 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged [...] for those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.05 million miles driven This still isn't the correct comparison. Major selection bias with comparing miles with autopilot engaged to miles without it engaged, since autopilot cannot be engaged in all situations. A better test would be to compare accidents in Tesla vehicles with the autopilot feature enabled (engaged or not) to accidents in Tesla vehicles with the autopilot feature disabled.
treeman79 5y ago
Ignoring other issues. Asking someone to pay attention when they are not doing anything is unrealistic. I would be constantly bored / distracted. My wife would instantly fall asleep. Etc etc.
vntok 5y ago
This argument is flawed, because when regulators investigate a Tesla crash, Waymo doesn't care the slightest. The technologies (emphasis on having skeuomorphic cameras vs a lidar), approaches (emphasis on generating as many situations as possible in simulated worlds and carefully transitioning to the business case vs testing as early in the real world with background data captation) and results are so different between the actors in this specific industry that one's flaws being fixed or improved won't necessarily translate into others benefitting from it. Conversely, when Waymo iterates and improves their own safety ratios by a significant amount, that evidently does not result in Tesla's improving in return.
- unionpivo 5y ago
  well when regulators investigate Boing, Airbus probably doesn't care either. Until it leads to something systemic, that then regulator mandates for all vehicles
  - vntok 5y ago
    Boeing and Airbus operate largely in the same direction with similar technical solutions to somilar problems. Not the case at all between lidars and cameras.
sandworm101 5y ago
Then why not flip the scheme. Instead of have the human as backup to the machine, make the machine backup the human. Let the human do all the driving and have the robot jump in whenever the human makes a mistake. Telemetry can then record all the situations where the human and the machine disagreed. That should provide all the necessary data, with the benefit of the robot perhaps preventing many accidents. Of course this is impossible in the real world. Nobody is going to buy a car that will randomly make its own decisions, that will pull the wheel from your hands ever time it thinks you are making an illegal lane change. Want safety? How about a Tesla that is electronically incapable of speeding. Good luck selling that one.
- velcii 5y ago
  >Let the human do all the driving and have the robot jump in whenever the human makes a mistake. I really don't think that would give many data points, because all of the instances would be when a human fell asleep or wasn't paying attention.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > * Let the human do all the driving and have the robot jump in whenever the human makes a mistake.* Because when the human disagrees with the machine, the machine is usually the one making a mistake. It might prevent accidents, but it would also cause them, and you lose predictability in the process (you have to model the human and the machine).
  - foobiekr 5y ago
    I don't know how anyone can look at the types of accidents Tesla is having and conclude that it should override the human driver.
- FridayoLeary 5y ago
  >Let the human do all the driving and have the robot jump in whenever the human makes a mistake. Nothing more annoying then a car that thinks i don't know how to drive (warning beeps etc.).
dboreham 5y ago
This line of thinking is flawed because it assumes a smooth surface over the safety space, where if you make incremental improvements you will head towards some maxima of safety. e.g. : the wing fell off; investigate; find that you can't use brittle aluminum; tell aircraft manf. to use a more ductile alloy. Self driving technology isn't like that -- you can't just file a bug "don't mistake a human for a plastic bag", fix that bug and move on to the next one. No number of incremental fixes will make self driving that works as any reasonable human would expect it to work.

3pt14159 5y ago

I largely agree with you, but I just wish regulators would start by only allowing these assist programs for people that are already known to be poor drivers. The elderly and convicted drunk drivers, for example. That way we could have the best of both worlds.

lastofthemojito 5y ago
Incentivizing drunk driving seems dangerous.
- joshgrib 5y ago
  Requiring people to buy a special car/system to be able to drive doesn't seem like an incentive - it seems similar to the interlock system we currently require drunk drivers to purchase to be able to drive. If anything a driver monitoring system seems even better than the interlock system, for example you couldn't have your kids/friends blow for you to bypass it.
unionpivo 5y ago
I disagree. I would not put people who shoved poor judgment in situation, where they can further hurt other or themselves it. People like that are more likely not to pay attention and do other irresponsible things. Go with safest drivers first.
Seanambers 5y ago
Teslas Autopilot system is almost 10X safer than the average human driver already based on the latest 2021 Q1 numbers. https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/VehicleSafetyReport
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  That impressive claim narrows to approximately the noise floor if you compare to comparable drivers in comparable cars.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ben_w 5y ago
  > In the 1st quarter, we registered one accident for every 4.19 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.05 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 978 thousand miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles. I think the comparison should be Tesla with/without AI, not Tesla/not-Tesla; so roughly either x2 or x4 depending on what the other active safety features do. It’s not nothing, but it’s much less than the current sales pitch — and the current sales pitch is itself the problem here, for many legislators.
  - Ajedi32 5y ago
    > we registered one accident for every 4.19 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged [...] for those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.05 million miles driven This still isn't the correct comparison. Major selection bias with comparing miles with autopilot engaged to miles without it engaged, since autopilot cannot be engaged in all situations. A better test would be to compare accidents in Tesla vehicles with the autopilot feature enabled (engaged or not) to accidents in Tesla vehicles with the autopilot feature disabled.

treeman79 5y ago

Ignoring other issues. Asking someone to pay attention when they are not doing anything is unrealistic. I would be constantly bored / distracted. My wife would instantly fall asleep. Etc etc.

vntok 5y ago

This argument is flawed, because when regulators investigate a Tesla crash, Waymo doesn't care the slightest. The technologies (emphasis on having skeuomorphic cameras vs a lidar), approaches (emphasis on generating as many situations as possible in simulated worlds and carefully transitioning to the business case vs testing as early in the real world with background data captation) and results are so different between the actors in this specific industry that one's flaws being fixed or improved won't necessarily translate into others benefitting from it. Conversely, when Waymo iterates and improves their own safety ratios by a significant amount, that evidently does not result in Tesla's improving in return.

unionpivo 5y ago
well when regulators investigate Boing, Airbus probably doesn't care either. Until it leads to something systemic, that then regulator mandates for all vehicles
- vntok 5y ago
  Boeing and Airbus operate largely in the same direction with similar technical solutions to somilar problems. Not the case at all between lidars and cameras.

sandworm101 5y ago

Then why not flip the scheme. Instead of have the human as backup to the machine, make the machine backup the human. Let the human do all the driving and have the robot jump in whenever the human makes a mistake. Telemetry can then record all the situations where the human and the machine disagreed. That should provide all the necessary data, with the benefit of the robot perhaps preventing many accidents. Of course this is impossible in the real world. Nobody is going to buy a car that will randomly make its own decisions, that will pull the wheel from your hands ever time it thinks you are making an illegal lane change. Want safety? How about a Tesla that is electronically incapable of speeding. Good luck selling that one.

velcii 5y ago
>Let the human do all the driving and have the robot jump in whenever the human makes a mistake. I really don't think that would give many data points, because all of the instances would be when a human fell asleep or wasn't paying attention.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
wizzwizz4 5y ago
> * Let the human do all the driving and have the robot jump in whenever the human makes a mistake.* Because when the human disagrees with the machine, the machine is usually the one making a mistake. It might prevent accidents, but it would also cause them, and you lose predictability in the process (you have to model the human and the machine).
- foobiekr 5y ago
  I don't know how anyone can look at the types of accidents Tesla is having and conclude that it should override the human driver.
FridayoLeary 5y ago
>Let the human do all the driving and have the robot jump in whenever the human makes a mistake. Nothing more annoying then a car that thinks i don't know how to drive (warning beeps etc.).

dboreham 5y ago

This line of thinking is flawed because it assumes a smooth surface over the safety space, where if you make incremental improvements you will head towards some maxima of safety. e.g. : the wing fell off; investigate; find that you can't use brittle aluminum; tell aircraft manf. to use a more ductile alloy. Self driving technology isn't like that -- you can't just file a bug "don't mistake a human for a plastic bag", fix that bug and move on to the next one. No number of incremental fixes will make self driving that works as any reasonable human would expect it to work.