2 ms·

99% perfect is not good enough, it's horrifyingly bad for a car on public roads. When I drive, I don't spend 1 minute plowing into pedestrians for every 1 hour

99% perfect is not good enough, it's horrifyingly bad for a car on public roads. When I drive, I don't spend 1 minute plowing into pedestrians for every 1 hour and 39 minutes I spend driving normally. If a FSD Tesla spends just 99% of its time doing boring, non-click-worthy things, that is itself interesting in how dangerous it is. To your point, I'm definitely interested in knowing how many minutes of boring driving tend to elapse between these events. The quantity of these sorts of videos that have been publicized recently gives me the impression that one of these cars would not be able to spend 100 minutes of intervention-free driving around a complex urban environment with pedestrians and construction without probable damage to either a human or an inanimate object.

angelzen 5y ago
99% is a an very rough colloquial estimate meaning 'the vast majority of the time' to drive the point. Could well be 99.999999%. What really matters is how it compares with human performance, I don't have data to do that comparison. The only ones that can make the comparison are Tesla, modulo believing data from a megacorp in the wake of the VW scandal.
- flavius29663 5y ago
  FYI, that 99.999999 number you quoted is still bad. It means around 30 minutes of the machine actively trying to kill you or others while driving on public roads. I assumed a person driving 2 hours a day for a year. FSD should not be allowed on the road, or if it is it should be labeled as what it really is: lane assist.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    I'm not 'quoting' any numbers. I don't own a Tesla. I don't trust lane assist technology, the probability of catastrophic failure is much larger even compared with dynamic cruise control. I'll steer the wheel thank you very much. I'm not a techno-optimist, rather the contrary. I would like independent verification of the safety claims Tesla makes, or any other claims made by vendors of safety-critical devices. What I am saying is that selection bias has exploded in the age of viral videos, and this phenomenon doesn't receive anywhere near the attention it deserves. We can't make sound judgements based on online videos, we need quality data.
- itsoktocry 5y ago
  >Could well be 99.999999% That's up to you (or Tesla) to prove, isn't it? Taking your (or Tesla's) word that it's good most of the time is utterly meaningless.

angelzen 5y ago

99% is a an very rough colloquial estimate meaning 'the vast majority of the time' to drive the point. Could well be 99.999999%. What really matters is how it compares with human performance, I don't have data to do that comparison. The only ones that can make the comparison are Tesla, modulo believing data from a megacorp in the wake of the VW scandal.

flavius29663 5y ago
FYI, that 99.999999 number you quoted is still bad. It means around 30 minutes of the machine actively trying to kill you or others while driving on public roads. I assumed a person driving 2 hours a day for a year. FSD should not be allowed on the road, or if it is it should be labeled as what it really is: lane assist.
- angelzen 5y ago
  I'm not 'quoting' any numbers. I don't own a Tesla. I don't trust lane assist technology, the probability of catastrophic failure is much larger even compared with dynamic cruise control. I'll steer the wheel thank you very much. I'm not a techno-optimist, rather the contrary. I would like independent verification of the safety claims Tesla makes, or any other claims made by vendors of safety-critical devices. What I am saying is that selection bias has exploded in the age of viral videos, and this phenomenon doesn't receive anywhere near the attention it deserves. We can't make sound judgements based on online videos, we need quality data.
itsoktocry 5y ago
>Could well be 99.999999% That's up to you (or Tesla) to prove, isn't it? Taking your (or Tesla's) word that it's good most of the time is utterly meaningless.