3 ms·

I'll start by saying the point has been explained across hundreds of words in multiple forms, at some point you might have to accept you need to gain some more

I'll start by saying the point has been explained across hundreds of words in multiple forms, at some point you might have to accept you need to gain some more background here independently. - Nothing about what you quoted implies FSD is machine only. And I mean it's not even for me to define if FSD is machine only, FSD has never been machine only, that's why it's even allowed to operate as it does on public roads. - Now, my final attempt to break this down in yet another way... A driver using LKA needs to actively be applying the correct input since it only works when the car is already approaching a lane marker. A driver using FSD must be doing the exact opposite. While they must be paying attention and ready to provide input they cannot be actively applying the correct input without causing FSD to disengage. So most they can do is give the systems indications that they are ready for after things are off the happy path. - Both LKA and FSD can fail for inattentive drivers and both can save them, but because of the difference in input, only FSD can harm a driver who was otherwise aware and capable of providing the correct input but not allowed to until things started going wrong lest the feature disable itself.

ajross 5y ago
> only FSD can harm a driver who was otherwise aware and capable of providing the correct input but not allowed to until things started going wrong lest the feature disable itself. This is simply not the case. If you don't like what FSD is doing you disengage. The very linked video we're discussing is an existence proof! Is your whole point a psychological one? You think FSD drivers are less likely to correct the machine than drivers with assistive technology? That seems like something you need to argue with evidence and not principle. Are they? I certainly haven't seen numbers. Tesla's own numbers seem to imply the opposite: Teslas also have assistive features, but they still get in fewer accidents with AP engaged.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  This is going over your head, and I'm not saying that to be insulting. > This is simply not the case. If you don't like what FSD is doing you disengage. The very linked video we're discussing is an existence proof! How do you use FSD and actively steer. When you actively steer FSD will disengage. That's literally what my comment says there. You cannot provide correct input while FSD is active So you're going to have a worse reaction time, and be starting from a worse situation than someone who was already hands on wheel driving. And the passive aids still help the person who is hands on wheel driving in the situations using the exact same sensors as FSD where they're distracted so you're not giving up safety. > Is your whole point a psychological one? You think FSD drivers are less likely to correct the machine than drivers with assistive technology? That seems like something you need to argue with evidence and not principle. I've argued it with simple logic you could have easily worked through if you actually understood the thing you were talking about for 4? 5? comments now? The hilarious thing is how you clearly haven't tried looking to find the multiple studies that come up with the same result: https://electrek.co/2021/09/13/tesla-autopilot-decreases-driver-attention-new-study/ https://electrek.co/2021/09/13/tesla-autopilot-decreases-dri... > Tesla's own numbers seem to imply the opposite: Teslas also have assistive features, but they still get in fewer accidents with AP engaged. You're saying Tesla's numbers enforce the narrative they're pushing? Say it ain't so. First off I've never seen these numbers for FSD, so I'd love to see them. Second, comparing Teslas to Teslas is such an easy out for them, why wouldn't they?! I mean, Tesla has largely lagged behind the rest of the industry in passive assistance. They're focusing on more active features, and the result is things like getting basic LKA without human intervention in 2019, almost 5 years after the base model Corolla did: https://www.tesla.com/blog/more-advanced-safety-tesla-owners https://www.tesla.com/blog/more-advanced-safety-tesla-owners - But the fact only counting vs Teslas is such a huge confounding factor... it's laughable someone would actually pass that as acceptable. Just the fact that AP being on means you can never go more than 5 mph over the posted speed limit, hello? People with AP have to disengage it to drive recklessly, so of course if you limit yourself to Teslas they'll be much safer. Then AP is mostly designed for the types of roads that have the lowest accident rates. And the inverse AP straight up doesn't work on the roads with the highest accident rates, only FSD does and we conveniently won't get that broken out for a loooong time... It's embarrassing how many obvious holes there are here that show they're - I mean don't even take my word for all this: https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-crash-elon-musk-autopilot-safety-data-flaws-experts-nhtsa-2021-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-crash-elon-musk-autopi... No one has shown the only useful metric yet. Newer cars with features like AEB and LKA vs cars with FSD. Tesla is happy to keep playing the media circus with things like comparing accident rates with _all_ cars on the road... everything from a 20 year old compact with the crash safety of a paper bag to a lifted pickup truck with a center of gravity somewhere above the average car. In the meantime we'll continue to watch videos like the one above, while companies ship cars that have safety features for when things go wrong instead of claiming to be "Full Self Driving" then ask you to be ready to take over at a moments notice.
  - ajross 5y ago
    > How do you use FSD and actively steer. When you actively steer FSD will disengage. So... your point is that the mere fact of "actively steering" causes a quantifiable difference in attentiveness not seen in data, but that you feel is so obvious as to be a first principles argument that doesn't need any? I disagree. And my evidence is that drivers watching existing Tesla autopilot are seeing the same interface you're decrying, and are getting in fewer accidents than people using the Tesla-provided assistive feature but not using autopilot. (c.f. https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport) Also, that an attentive driver not "actively steering" is clearly sufficient in practice, as this video proves. Your turn. You claim this isn't as safe. Where's that been measured?
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      No it's still your turn. I'm done repeating myself, the answer to what you posited is in the comment you replied to.
      - ajross 5y ago
        > I'm done repeating myself, the answer to what you posited is in the comment you replied to. And I remain confused. You haven't presented anything here that looks like a measurment or number. I mean, if passive assistive technology (deployed in real cars) is clearly safer than drive-on-its-own automation (also deployed in real cars, c.f. Tesla AP), then that should be measurable. And in fact at least some measurements have been done (by Tesla, of its own fleet) and show the opposite. All you have to do is show me the data that shows this is incorrect. But... you didn't. You're just citing an "answer". Answers aren't enough to rebut data.

ajross 5y ago

> only FSD can harm a driver who was otherwise aware and capable of providing the correct input but not allowed to until things started going wrong lest the feature disable itself. This is simply not the case. If you don't like what FSD is doing you disengage. The very linked video we're discussing is an existence proof! Is your whole point a psychological one? You think FSD drivers are less likely to correct the machine than drivers with assistive technology? That seems like something you need to argue with evidence and not principle. Are they? I certainly haven't seen numbers. Tesla's own numbers seem to imply the opposite: Teslas also have assistive features, but they still get in fewer accidents with AP engaged.

BoorishBears 5y ago
This is going over your head, and I'm not saying that to be insulting. > This is simply not the case. If you don't like what FSD is doing you disengage. The very linked video we're discussing is an existence proof! How do you use FSD and actively steer. When you actively steer FSD will disengage. That's literally what my comment says there. You cannot provide correct input while FSD is active So you're going to have a worse reaction time, and be starting from a worse situation than someone who was already hands on wheel driving. And the passive aids still help the person who is hands on wheel driving in the situations using the exact same sensors as FSD where they're distracted so you're not giving up safety. > Is your whole point a psychological one? You think FSD drivers are less likely to correct the machine than drivers with assistive technology? That seems like something you need to argue with evidence and not principle. I've argued it with simple logic you could have easily worked through if you actually understood the thing you were talking about for 4? 5? comments now? The hilarious thing is how you clearly haven't tried looking to find the multiple studies that come up with the same result: https://electrek.co/2021/09/13/tesla-autopilot-decreases-driver-attention-new-study/ https://electrek.co/2021/09/13/tesla-autopilot-decreases-dri... > Tesla's own numbers seem to imply the opposite: Teslas also have assistive features, but they still get in fewer accidents with AP engaged. You're saying Tesla's numbers enforce the narrative they're pushing? Say it ain't so. First off I've never seen these numbers for FSD, so I'd love to see them. Second, comparing Teslas to Teslas is such an easy out for them, why wouldn't they?! I mean, Tesla has largely lagged behind the rest of the industry in passive assistance. They're focusing on more active features, and the result is things like getting basic LKA without human intervention in 2019, almost 5 years after the base model Corolla did: https://www.tesla.com/blog/more-advanced-safety-tesla-owners https://www.tesla.com/blog/more-advanced-safety-tesla-owners - But the fact only counting vs Teslas is such a huge confounding factor... it's laughable someone would actually pass that as acceptable. Just the fact that AP being on means you can never go more than 5 mph over the posted speed limit, hello? People with AP have to disengage it to drive recklessly, so of course if you limit yourself to Teslas they'll be much safer. Then AP is mostly designed for the types of roads that have the lowest accident rates. And the inverse AP straight up doesn't work on the roads with the highest accident rates, only FSD does and we conveniently won't get that broken out for a loooong time... It's embarrassing how many obvious holes there are here that show they're - I mean don't even take my word for all this: https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-crash-elon-musk-autopilot-safety-data-flaws-experts-nhtsa-2021-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-crash-elon-musk-autopi... No one has shown the only useful metric yet. Newer cars with features like AEB and LKA vs cars with FSD. Tesla is happy to keep playing the media circus with things like comparing accident rates with _all_ cars on the road... everything from a 20 year old compact with the crash safety of a paper bag to a lifted pickup truck with a center of gravity somewhere above the average car. In the meantime we'll continue to watch videos like the one above, while companies ship cars that have safety features for when things go wrong instead of claiming to be "Full Self Driving" then ask you to be ready to take over at a moments notice.
- ajross 5y ago
  > How do you use FSD and actively steer. When you actively steer FSD will disengage. So... your point is that the mere fact of "actively steering" causes a quantifiable difference in attentiveness not seen in data, but that you feel is so obvious as to be a first principles argument that doesn't need any? I disagree. And my evidence is that drivers watching existing Tesla autopilot are seeing the same interface you're decrying, and are getting in fewer accidents than people using the Tesla-provided assistive feature but not using autopilot. (c.f. https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport) Also, that an attentive driver not "actively steering" is clearly sufficient in practice, as this video proves. Your turn. You claim this isn't as safe. Where's that been measured?
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    No it's still your turn. I'm done repeating myself, the answer to what you posited is in the comment you replied to.
    - ajross 5y ago
      > I'm done repeating myself, the answer to what you posited is in the comment you replied to. And I remain confused. You haven't presented anything here that looks like a measurment or number. I mean, if passive assistive technology (deployed in real cars) is clearly safer than drive-on-its-own automation (also deployed in real cars, c.f. Tesla AP), then that should be measurable. And in fact at least some measurements have been done (by Tesla, of its own fleet) and show the opposite. All you have to do is show me the data that shows this is incorrect. But... you didn't. You're just citing an "answer". Answers aren't enough to rebut data.