3 ms·

What's the source for this claim? Are you accounting for the fact different classes of vehicle have differing accident statistics (e.g. comparing teslas to sim

by emn13 5y ago

What's the source for this claim? Are you accounting for the fact different classes of vehicle have differing accident statistics (e.g. comparing teslas to similarly old and expensive alternatives), and that autopilot's miles are not a random sample of all driven miles?

ajross 5y ago
No, because it's enough that it exists as an existence proof refuting the hypothesis. The burden is on people contending that e.g. AP can't stop for emergency vehicles (or the related point in the linked article that emergency braking doesn't work) to show that it is unsafe. That analysis doesn't hold for obvious interpretations of the data we have. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it means you need to come to the table with more work. It's not enough to argue with me on HN.
- emn13 5y ago
  If you're merely questioning whether Tesla's really do crash into emergency vehicles more often that would be expected, I get it. But "Tesla's on AP get in these crashes about half as much as vehicles in the general fleet" is unsupported; even in Tesla's own figures from https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport the difference between AP and non-AP Tesla's isn't large enough (for me anyhow) to actually draw any conclusions from, since AP usage is obviously correlated with road conditions. To be clear: I'm not saying it's at all obvious that AP does worse than a human driver, but it's neither is that possibility ruled out by anything they've posted there - Tesla simply choose to present statistics without the context required to interpret them, likely because it suits their marketing aims. News at 11. The human instinct to retain control even when that's not to their advantage gives me the hunch that it's more plausible that the apparent numerical benefits of AP are simply due to selection bias; people turn it on in situations that are less messy, and therefore it's involved in fewer accidents. Perhaps these investigations will reveal more. Put it this way: if autopilot actually were better than a human driver, and humans choose to use it in less dangerous situations, and those drivers at least sometimes pay enough attention to catch the occasional AP oversight (better isn't perfect!) - well, then I'd expect the AP crash numbers to be dramatically lower than the human crash numbers. They're not. I do think the Tesla AP numbers look less bad than they did a few years ago anyhow, to be fair. I just don't think it paints a clear picture yet.
  - ajross 5y ago
    > the difference between AP and non-AP Tesla's isn't large enough (for me anyhow) to actually draw any conclusions from Fine. But then why do you feel so certain about a data set of 13 points over three years? The point under discussion is a contention that AP is less safe because the autobraking doesn't work with emergency vehicles.
    - emn13 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you're talking about? Which 13 points? Maybe you're confusing me with a different poster? Anyhow, my objection is to the positive assertion that the AP is safer based on published data. And even there - I can understand the positive interpretation at first glance; I just don't share it. As to the formal investigation - there aren't any conclusions yet, so no news there.

by emn13 5y ago

ajross 5y ago

No, because it's enough that it exists as an existence proof refuting the hypothesis. The burden is on people contending that e.g. AP can't stop for emergency vehicles (or the related point in the linked article that emergency braking doesn't work) to show that it is unsafe. That analysis doesn't hold for obvious interpretations of the data we have. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it means you need to come to the table with more work. It's not enough to argue with me on HN.

emn13 5y ago
If you're merely questioning whether Tesla's really do crash into emergency vehicles more often that would be expected, I get it. But "Tesla's on AP get in these crashes about half as much as vehicles in the general fleet" is unsupported; even in Tesla's own figures from https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport the difference between AP and non-AP Tesla's isn't large enough (for me anyhow) to actually draw any conclusions from, since AP usage is obviously correlated with road conditions. To be clear: I'm not saying it's at all obvious that AP does worse than a human driver, but it's neither is that possibility ruled out by anything they've posted there - Tesla simply choose to present statistics without the context required to interpret them, likely because it suits their marketing aims. News at 11. The human instinct to retain control even when that's not to their advantage gives me the hunch that it's more plausible that the apparent numerical benefits of AP are simply due to selection bias; people turn it on in situations that are less messy, and therefore it's involved in fewer accidents. Perhaps these investigations will reveal more. Put it this way: if autopilot actually were better than a human driver, and humans choose to use it in less dangerous situations, and those drivers at least sometimes pay enough attention to catch the occasional AP oversight (better isn't perfect!) - well, then I'd expect the AP crash numbers to be dramatically lower than the human crash numbers. They're not. I do think the Tesla AP numbers look less bad than they did a few years ago anyhow, to be fair. I just don't think it paints a clear picture yet.
- ajross 5y ago
  > the difference between AP and non-AP Tesla's isn't large enough (for me anyhow) to actually draw any conclusions from Fine. But then why do you feel so certain about a data set of 13 points over three years? The point under discussion is a contention that AP is less safe because the autobraking doesn't work with emergency vehicles.
  - emn13 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you're talking about? Which 13 points? Maybe you're confusing me with a different poster? Anyhow, my objection is to the positive assertion that the AP is safer based on published data. And even there - I can understand the positive interpretation at first glance; I just don't share it. As to the formal investigation - there aren't any conclusions yet, so no news there.