4 ms·

> But my point was anything less than this is a complete waste of time and useless as a product because until you are completely hands and attention off, you ha

> But my point was anything less than this is a complete waste of time and useless as a product because until you are completely hands and attention off, you have to be completely hands and attention on/ready...no matter how good or near actual FSD it gets. Agreed. If I got a Telsa tomorrow I wouldn't do so with "FSD". > Because 99.9, or 99.9999, or 99.999999% effective is effectively 0 percent effective given the catastrophic outcome of any error if you aren't devoting full attention to monitoring the car. I'm not sure what effectiveness you're measuring. There will always be fatal accidents with heavy vehicles moving at high speeds. It's more of a regulatory issue where the accident rate of auto-pilot systems is sufficiently lower than human drivers (because I believe it is already lower in many situations, just not sufficiently lower or ubiquitously lower) and we decide its good enough to no longer require monitoring by the driver. Edit: I guess its even more complicated than that. Using hypothetical numbers, if the accident-free rate of a human is 99%, and auto pilot is better at 99.9%, but combined (auto-pilot with human monitoring and rare intervention) is 99.999%, can we justify allowing no monitoring in that situation? Can we expect people to follow the law or will it turn in to more of a speed-limit type grey area.

PKop 5y ago
Not all errors or accidents are created equal. As someone else mentioned in this thread the nature of human error is qualitatively different than the nature of seemingly random errors we see with self-driving. Code bugs can produce any scale of error. Humans do no in any given situation have open-ended likelihood of making any errors. Search youtube videos of Teslas if you haven't seen them yet. The cars will randomly swerve into parked cars, inexplicably steer out of turns, aim directly at medians on the highway. Human errors on average do not equate to this if we want to compare human error "rates" to machine. What is the rate of a random catastrophic error? Machines are way way too high for the foreseeable future, and because of the nature of software bugs they arguably always be higher than humans. The scope of what AI has to be to achieve "general" driving on open-map roads with near infinite variables nearly equates to "general" AI itself. You can't allow "halfway" monitoring the car. It's all or nothing. It's always monitored or it's not monitored because errors can happen at any time. But anyways, humans aren't robots. Their attention basically not focused if it's not focused completely... multi-tasking is false, and humans already fall asleep fairly easily driving manually. If they have to sit there "focused" but not driving this will lead to even more instances of sleeping or just not monitoring generally. The numbers are a thought experiment what I mean by effectiveness or mistake or error is just the driver (man or machine) doing something they shouldn't have. Messing up. Humans have very low rates of these mistakes/bad actions/errors. They have very very low rates of catastrophic mistakes. I predict Tesla's won't be 99.anything for a long time. But think of how error-free they have to be to account for the huge domain of roads, signs, weather, terrains, other cars such that when they make their mistakes it doesn't result in disaster... or just "accidents" galore.

PKop 5y ago

Not all errors or accidents are created equal. As someone else mentioned in this thread the nature of human error is qualitatively different than the nature of seemingly random errors we see with self-driving. Code bugs can produce any scale of error. Humans do no in any given situation have open-ended likelihood of making any errors. Search youtube videos of Teslas if you haven't seen them yet. The cars will randomly swerve into parked cars, inexplicably steer out of turns, aim directly at medians on the highway. Human errors on average do not equate to this if we want to compare human error "rates" to machine. What is the rate of a random catastrophic error? Machines are way way too high for the foreseeable future, and because of the nature of software bugs they arguably always be higher than humans. The scope of what AI has to be to achieve "general" driving on open-map roads with near infinite variables nearly equates to "general" AI itself. You can't allow "halfway" monitoring the car. It's all or nothing. It's always monitored or it's not monitored because errors can happen at any time. But anyways, humans aren't robots. Their attention basically not focused if it's not focused completely... multi-tasking is false, and humans already fall asleep fairly easily driving manually. If they have to sit there "focused" but not driving this will lead to even more instances of sleeping or just not monitoring generally. The numbers are a thought experiment what I mean by effectiveness or mistake or error is just the driver (man or machine) doing something they shouldn't have. Messing up. Humans have very low rates of these mistakes/bad actions/errors. They have very very low rates of catastrophic mistakes. I predict Tesla's won't be 99.anything for a long time. But think of how error-free they have to be to account for the huge domain of roads, signs, weather, terrains, other cars such that when they make their mistakes it doesn't result in disaster... or just "accidents" galore.