3 ms·

But HOW do we know is safer? We should not assume is safer by default and I see many problems with Tesla fanboys numbers 1 the count for the times drivers inte

But HOW do we know is safer? We should not assume is safer by default and I see many problems with Tesla fanboys numbers 1 the count for the times drivers intervene to prevent a crash are secret, or are not counted at a crash. 2 I don't want on my village/city some american car that is safer then the american driver that included 16 year old drunk teens and people that don't even have to pass exams and medical tests. The self driving car should be compared with healthy drivers , I don't care that some state/country is incapable of stopping speeding or drunk driving. 3 updating this cars should invalidate previous approvals, as a software developer I know well how updates include bugs not only features. Anyway I am against companies deciding from themselves how is a capable alphya testers and how they should run alpha tests. If we want real metrics then incidents liek the ones in the video should be counted against Tesla, is MALICIOUS to show a stats of average driver using an average car versus an expensive car with a combo of human+computer and assign the good to the computer and ignore the many times the human had to save the computer ass. Fuck shit statistics and shit companies and fanboys using them. At best you can prove the computer might be a decent copilot versus no copilot.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> But HOW do we know is safer? We measure. This requires transparency on the part of Tesla, but if we frame it as "if you want legal FSD, you have to comply with transparency". We regulate like this in all other industries so there's no reason to think we can't do it here. > We should not assume is safer by default No one is advocating "assume it is safer by default". > I see many problems with Tesla fanboys numbers Right, but by framing it with metrics rather than cherry-picked incidents, we can have a national conversation about which metrics are most appropriate. If Tesla fanboys bring numbers that you take issue with, you can debate them. As an aside, it's hilarious that my earlier comment was being downvoted for advocating a debate based on data rather than cherry picked anecdotes, but I should know my audience better :) > the count for the times drivers intervene to prevent a crash are secret, or are not counted at a crash. See my transparency remarks above. > I don't want on my village/city some american car that is safer then the american driver that included 16 year old drunk teens and people that don't even have to pass exams and medical tests. Ignoring the obvious barbs at Americans, if we quantify the safety of any given FSD system, we can compare that against local safety and prohibit FSD systems which score worse than the local average such that FSD will only ever be a boon. > updating this cars should invalidate previous approvals, as a software developer I know well how updates include bugs not only features. Seems reasonable to me. > Anyway I am against companies deciding from themselves how is a capable alphya testers and how they should run alpha tests. In this case, I agree. > Fuck shit statistics and shit companies and fanboys using them. I love these kinds of constructive comments. Keep 'em coming.
- panarky 5y ago
  >> updating cars should invalidate previous approvals > Seems reasonable to me Year 2026: autonomous drivers have 80% fewer accidents per million miles than human drivers. Bug fix to improve that to 90% and prevent an additional 500,000 casualties per year must wait until 2028 for NHTSA certification.
  - simion314 5y ago
    >Year 2026: autonomous drivers have 80% fewer accidents per million miles than human drivers. What "autonomous drivers" means in your numbers? Does it mean autopilot without any driver in the car that intensives like in TFA? Because this is the shit stats ignore the cases where the autopilot was saved from 5 crashes in 5 minutes by it's driver, in this case you could say the combo of driver+auto-co-plot is safer , also you should compare same cars and same roads , self driving software gives up on harder conditions so this inflates your stats. TL:DR Tesla should also show the disengagements numbers so we can add those in the stats, some of those would have been crashes if the driver did not intervene.
- spicybright 5y ago
  > This requires transparency on the part of Tesla Good fucking luck, that's going to be harder than pulling Elon's teeth out. Telsa has regularly lied about how well the system works, and will continue to do so unless we strong arm some independent verification on them. And good luck getting that to happen. Governments roll onto their backs for Musk like it's the second coming of christ. FSD should not be on the road without transparency. I don't want to get in car accidents because Musk wants to beta test crappy software.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Governments roll onto their backs for Musk like it's the second coming of christ. Lol, nonsense. Musk moved Tesla HQ out of California precisely because he couldn't get the local or state government to play ball (a California politician publicly Tweeted "F*ck Elon Musk"--hardly "rolling onto their backs"). Moreover, if you can't depend on governments to defy Musk and require regulatory oversight of FSD, how are you going to depend on them to outlaw FSD altogether?

throwaway894345 5y ago

> But HOW do we know is safer? We measure. This requires transparency on the part of Tesla, but if we frame it as "if you want legal FSD, you have to comply with transparency". We regulate like this in all other industries so there's no reason to think we can't do it here. > We should not assume is safer by default No one is advocating "assume it is safer by default". > I see many problems with Tesla fanboys numbers Right, but by framing it with metrics rather than cherry-picked incidents, we can have a national conversation about which metrics are most appropriate. If Tesla fanboys bring numbers that you take issue with, you can debate them. As an aside, it's hilarious that my earlier comment was being downvoted for advocating a debate based on data rather than cherry picked anecdotes, but I should know my audience better :) > the count for the times drivers intervene to prevent a crash are secret, or are not counted at a crash. See my transparency remarks above. > I don't want on my village/city some american car that is safer then the american driver that included 16 year old drunk teens and people that don't even have to pass exams and medical tests. Ignoring the obvious barbs at Americans, if we quantify the safety of any given FSD system, we can compare that against local safety and prohibit FSD systems which score worse than the local average such that FSD will only ever be a boon. > updating this cars should invalidate previous approvals, as a software developer I know well how updates include bugs not only features. Seems reasonable to me. > Anyway I am against companies deciding from themselves how is a capable alphya testers and how they should run alpha tests. In this case, I agree. > Fuck shit statistics and shit companies and fanboys using them. I love these kinds of constructive comments. Keep 'em coming.

panarky 5y ago
>> updating cars should invalidate previous approvals > Seems reasonable to me Year 2026: autonomous drivers have 80% fewer accidents per million miles than human drivers. Bug fix to improve that to 90% and prevent an additional 500,000 casualties per year must wait until 2028 for NHTSA certification.
- simion314 5y ago
  >Year 2026: autonomous drivers have 80% fewer accidents per million miles than human drivers. What "autonomous drivers" means in your numbers? Does it mean autopilot without any driver in the car that intensives like in TFA? Because this is the shit stats ignore the cases where the autopilot was saved from 5 crashes in 5 minutes by it's driver, in this case you could say the combo of driver+auto-co-plot is safer , also you should compare same cars and same roads , self driving software gives up on harder conditions so this inflates your stats. TL:DR Tesla should also show the disengagements numbers so we can add those in the stats, some of those would have been crashes if the driver did not intervene.
spicybright 5y ago
> This requires transparency on the part of Tesla Good fucking luck, that's going to be harder than pulling Elon's teeth out. Telsa has regularly lied about how well the system works, and will continue to do so unless we strong arm some independent verification on them. And good luck getting that to happen. Governments roll onto their backs for Musk like it's the second coming of christ. FSD should not be on the road without transparency. I don't want to get in car accidents because Musk wants to beta test crappy software.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Governments roll onto their backs for Musk like it's the second coming of christ. Lol, nonsense. Musk moved Tesla HQ out of California precisely because he couldn't get the local or state government to play ball (a California politician publicly Tweeted "F*ck Elon Musk"--hardly "rolling onto their backs"). Moreover, if you can't depend on governments to defy Musk and require regulatory oversight of FSD, how are you going to depend on them to outlaw FSD altogether?