4 ms·

I like how the article casually skips over the fact humans do a lot of the same stuff they're pointing out as failures. Seen plenty of people turning when they

I like how the article casually skips over the fact humans do a lot of the same stuff they're pointing out as failures. Seen plenty of people turning when they shouldn't, using the shoulder to get to a stop sign to turn, going down one way roads the wrong way, etc. It doesn't need to be perfect. It only needs to be better than humans as an average.

mort96 5y ago
You're right. It doesn't need to be perfect. It only needs to be better than humans on average. (How much better it needs to be is debatable, people react differently to accidents caused by machines than accidents caused by humans, but that's a different discussion.) So this line in the report should probably concern you: > FSD Beta v10 committed one likely collision every 36:25, or 475 per year. This is 8,506 times higher than the average accident rate for human drivers used by the auto insurance industry, which is one accident every 17.9 years. I don't know if it's fair to compare what they consider a "likely collision" to what the insurance industry considers an "accident". Maybe the analysis is bogus on that grounds. But your statement isn't an argument, since the analysis itself doesn't expect self driving to be perfect.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  17.9 years seems like a long time. Is this only major two-vehicle collisions? One year during a bad ice storm and stuck with a rental with no 4WD, I went into the ditch twice in one weekend. That's like half my lifetime allowance before I'm considered a bad driver, I guess.
  - BenjiWiebe 5y ago
    Well since this is what the insurance industry uses, presumably "accidents" causing no damage (or minor damage not turned in to insurance) don't count.
beardyw 5y ago
> It doesn't need to be perfect. It only needs to be better than humans as an average. Sadly I don't think this will be true. The problem is that if a person causes an accident only that driver is at fault. If a self driving car causes an accident it follows that all similar cars would have behaved the same, so they are all considered to be at fault. That will only be mitigated if they drive better than humans.
robbedpeter 5y ago
The problem is that people aren't interested in saving lives, reducing the number of accidents, or improving safety of accidents. They're interested in feeling comfortable with automated driving on the street next to them. Statistical improvements over human averages in deaths, injuries, and frequency of accidents won't sway people generally. People aren't interested in rational reality, they go with their gut and their understanding of narratives. Tesla needs to release thousands of boring videos demonstrating cars driving well to combat the saturation of error compilations. They need to establish the border between "scary robot driver"and "not perfect, but better than humans, preventing X deaths, Y severe injuries, and Z accidents overall for every million miles driven" and then create a McDonald's style "N lives/limbs/dollars saved by driving assist and FSD." Advertising gallons of fuel saved per Tesla miles driven and improvement to air quality would help as well. People keep moving the goalposts because their gut and the information they perceive tells them driving software is dangerous enough that humans are preferable. They see the media pumped by a system that follows the "if it bleeds, it leads" principle. People will watch criticisms and accident compilations at a ratio of hundreds or even thousands to 1. The only way to combat that narrative is by communicating a better one. They should provide sufficient information, honestly, so that arguing FSD or driving assist is less safe than humans driving is like arguing that McDonald's doesn't actually sell that many burgers. Otherwise it's the sensational and negative coverage shaping public perception and discourse. RTFS, or "Read The Fucking Statistics" should be the final say in these criticisms of ai driving systems. Otherwise actual improvements saving actual lives and limbs will be held back because regulators will pander to the politically safe narrative and obstruct progress in the name of safety, because people are stupid - they'd rather feel comfortable than be safe. This all, of course, depends on the numbers being in Tesla's favor, but I believe they are: here's the q4 2021 accident report: >>In the 4th quarter, we recorded one crash for every 4.31 million miles driven in which drivers were using Autopilot technology (Autosteer and active safety features). For drivers who were not using Autopilot technology (no Autosteer and active safety features), we recorded one crash for every 1.59 million miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles. That's better than average human performance. On highways, at speeds greater than 50mph, a reduction if the number of accidents by 8 or of 9 would mean a huge impact. 20k people died in 2021 on the highways - up to 17000 lives might have been saved by autopilot or driving systems. Reducing the number of crashes and accidents by 8 out of 9 is phenomenal.

mort96 5y ago

You're right. It doesn't need to be perfect. It only needs to be better than humans on average. (How much better it needs to be is debatable, people react differently to accidents caused by machines than accidents caused by humans, but that's a different discussion.) So this line in the report should probably concern you: > FSD Beta v10 committed one likely collision every 36:25, or 475 per year. This is 8,506 times higher than the average accident rate for human drivers used by the auto insurance industry, which is one accident every 17.9 years. I don't know if it's fair to compare what they consider a "likely collision" to what the insurance industry considers an "accident". Maybe the analysis is bogus on that grounds. But your statement isn't an argument, since the analysis itself doesn't expect self driving to be perfect.

torstenvl 5y ago
17.9 years seems like a long time. Is this only major two-vehicle collisions? One year during a bad ice storm and stuck with a rental with no 4WD, I went into the ditch twice in one weekend. That's like half my lifetime allowance before I'm considered a bad driver, I guess.
- BenjiWiebe 5y ago
  Well since this is what the insurance industry uses, presumably "accidents" causing no damage (or minor damage not turned in to insurance) don't count.

beardyw 5y ago

> It doesn't need to be perfect. It only needs to be better than humans as an average. Sadly I don't think this will be true. The problem is that if a person causes an accident only that driver is at fault. If a self driving car causes an accident it follows that all similar cars would have behaved the same, so they are all considered to be at fault. That will only be mitigated if they drive better than humans.

robbedpeter 5y ago

The problem is that people aren't interested in saving lives, reducing the number of accidents, or improving safety of accidents. They're interested in feeling comfortable with automated driving on the street next to them. Statistical improvements over human averages in deaths, injuries, and frequency of accidents won't sway people generally. People aren't interested in rational reality, they go with their gut and their understanding of narratives. Tesla needs to release thousands of boring videos demonstrating cars driving well to combat the saturation of error compilations. They need to establish the border between "scary robot driver"and "not perfect, but better than humans, preventing X deaths, Y severe injuries, and Z accidents overall for every million miles driven" and then create a McDonald's style "N lives/limbs/dollars saved by driving assist and FSD." Advertising gallons of fuel saved per Tesla miles driven and improvement to air quality would help as well. People keep moving the goalposts because their gut and the information they perceive tells them driving software is dangerous enough that humans are preferable. They see the media pumped by a system that follows the "if it bleeds, it leads" principle. People will watch criticisms and accident compilations at a ratio of hundreds or even thousands to 1. The only way to combat that narrative is by communicating a better one. They should provide sufficient information, honestly, so that arguing FSD or driving assist is less safe than humans driving is like arguing that McDonald's doesn't actually sell that many burgers. Otherwise it's the sensational and negative coverage shaping public perception and discourse. RTFS, or "Read The Fucking Statistics" should be the final say in these criticisms of ai driving systems. Otherwise actual improvements saving actual lives and limbs will be held back because regulators will pander to the politically safe narrative and obstruct progress in the name of safety, because people are stupid - they'd rather feel comfortable than be safe. This all, of course, depends on the numbers being in Tesla's favor, but I believe they are: here's the q4 2021 accident report: >>In the 4th quarter, we recorded one crash for every 4.31 million miles driven in which drivers were using Autopilot technology (Autosteer and active safety features). For drivers who were not using Autopilot technology (no Autosteer and active safety features), we recorded one crash for every 1.59 million miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles. That's better than average human performance. On highways, at speeds greater than 50mph, a reduction if the number of accidents by 8 or of 9 would mean a huge impact. 20k people died in 2021 on the highways - up to 17000 lives might have been saved by autopilot or driving systems. Reducing the number of crashes and accidents by 8 out of 9 is phenomenal.