5 ms·

You're not wrong. But you can say the same things about a human driver.

zizee 5y ago
And each human is unique, making it is really difficult to QA/monitor/rollout updates to the fleet.
ajross 5y ago
Don't understand why people are downvoting this. This is the fundamental truth about safety automation like this. We don't need a perfect system to get huge gains here. Humans are really bad at driving, frankly. The bar here is very low.
- notdonspaulding 5y ago
  I think you're right that the bar of "average human on the road's driving skills" is very low. However, I think one of the reasons there's such an inherent distrust of Tesla's FSD is that when it fails, it fails in scenarios in which people can easily see themselves succeeding. Say, on average, human drivers crash into barricades once out of every 500,000 miles driven. And say Tesla's FSD can beat that number by crashing into barricades once out of every 1,000,000 miles driven, it's still possible (probable?) that many people would trust their own control of the vehicle more than Tesla's FSD AI. And they might be justified in doing so! Why? Because human-caused accidents are not uniformly distributed among the driving population. Insurance companies have employed actuarial analysts for decades to split the driving population up into buckets of greater and lesser risk. Thus, if you're a 17-year-old male, or an 85-year-old woman, or have several DUIs, you're likely to pay higher premiums than most other drivers. If you're not in one of those high-risk categories though, it's possible your driving performance exceeds the average, and maybe you might only crash into barricades once out of every 2,000,000 miles driven. In that case, you'd be right to trust your skills ahead of the AI. My example is contrived. It's possible that the FSD AI leapfrogs even the most skilled human drivers. But until it does, there may be rational reasons for many folks to continue distrusting it.
  - MontyCarloHall 5y ago
    > Because human-caused accidents are not uniformly distributed among the driving population. This is such a great point. Controlling for driving circumstances (e.g. weather, location, etc.), human caused accidents are not uniformly distributed across the population, but machine caused accidents are. This, in my mind, is the fundamental reason people are distrustful of self-driving cars. Everyone thinks they’re far better than the median driver, even if this is mathematically impossible.
    - nightski 5y ago
      It's not just about skill. A lot of accidents are under the influence. That's a choice. While you can't control what other drivers are doing (and neither can the Tesla), you can at least significantly increase your odds of safety by some simple choices such as this.
      - ajross 5y ago
        > A lot of accidents are under the influence. That's a choice. Only for one of the drivers! There are at least two cars involved in almost every fatal accident. I made this point elsewhere but it bears repeating. Even if you think your driving is so perfect you can't benefit from a self-driving car, don't you want everyone else in one?
  - ajross 5y ago
    > My example is contrived. Pretty much. I think if you're going to make an argument like "accidents by teenagers, senior citizens and drunks don't matter" you need to put some numbers behind that. I mean, if you had a teenager or a family member with a substance problem, would you feel safer with them in a Tesla? If so, then I really don't think I understand your point. Basically you're just saying that you, personally, as a young single man, feel like you're much better at driving than the median driver. So you want a car that is significantly better than even the median before you will "feel safe". Alternate framing: it doesn't matter how safe you think your driving is, you're still sharing the road with grandparents. And you (if you're being rational about it) want them in a Tesla.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  That's ridiculous. Humans are quite good at driving, along with many other complex tasks. The fact that we see about 1 death for every 100,000,000 miles is pretty fantastic, especially when you consider how heavily that is tilted towards impaired drivers. Exclude the worst 1% of drivers and the average goes up considerably.

And each human is unique, making it is really difficult to QA/monitor/rollout updates to the fleet.

Don't understand why people are downvoting this. This is the fundamental truth about safety automation like this. We don't need a perfect system to get huge gains here. Humans are really bad at driving, frankly. The bar here is very low.

notdonspaulding 5y ago
I think you're right that the bar of "average human on the road's driving skills" is very low. However, I think one of the reasons there's such an inherent distrust of Tesla's FSD is that when it fails, it fails in scenarios in which people can easily see themselves succeeding. Say, on average, human drivers crash into barricades once out of every 500,000 miles driven. And say Tesla's FSD can beat that number by crashing into barricades once out of every 1,000,000 miles driven, it's still possible (probable?) that many people would trust their own control of the vehicle more than Tesla's FSD AI. And they might be justified in doing so! Why? Because human-caused accidents are not uniformly distributed among the driving population. Insurance companies have employed actuarial analysts for decades to split the driving population up into buckets of greater and lesser risk. Thus, if you're a 17-year-old male, or an 85-year-old woman, or have several DUIs, you're likely to pay higher premiums than most other drivers. If you're not in one of those high-risk categories though, it's possible your driving performance exceeds the average, and maybe you might only crash into barricades once out of every 2,000,000 miles driven. In that case, you'd be right to trust your skills ahead of the AI. My example is contrived. It's possible that the FSD AI leapfrogs even the most skilled human drivers. But until it does, there may be rational reasons for many folks to continue distrusting it.
- MontyCarloHall 5y ago
  > Because human-caused accidents are not uniformly distributed among the driving population. This is such a great point. Controlling for driving circumstances (e.g. weather, location, etc.), human caused accidents are not uniformly distributed across the population, but machine caused accidents are. This, in my mind, is the fundamental reason people are distrustful of self-driving cars. Everyone thinks they’re far better than the median driver, even if this is mathematically impossible.
  - nightski 5y ago
    It's not just about skill. A lot of accidents are under the influence. That's a choice. While you can't control what other drivers are doing (and neither can the Tesla), you can at least significantly increase your odds of safety by some simple choices such as this.
    - ajross 5y ago
      > A lot of accidents are under the influence. That's a choice. Only for one of the drivers! There are at least two cars involved in almost every fatal accident. I made this point elsewhere but it bears repeating. Even if you think your driving is so perfect you can't benefit from a self-driving car, don't you want everyone else in one?
- ajross 5y ago
  > My example is contrived. Pretty much. I think if you're going to make an argument like "accidents by teenagers, senior citizens and drunks don't matter" you need to put some numbers behind that. I mean, if you had a teenager or a family member with a substance problem, would you feel safer with them in a Tesla? If so, then I really don't think I understand your point. Basically you're just saying that you, personally, as a young single man, feel like you're much better at driving than the median driver. So you want a car that is significantly better than even the median before you will "feel safe". Alternate framing: it doesn't matter how safe you think your driving is, you're still sharing the road with grandparents. And you (if you're being rational about it) want them in a Tesla.
rootusrootus 5y ago
That's ridiculous. Humans are quite good at driving, along with many other complex tasks. The fact that we see about 1 death for every 100,000,000 miles is pretty fantastic, especially when you consider how heavily that is tilted towards impaired drivers. Exclude the worst 1% of drivers and the average goes up considerably.