7 ms·

Every day you slow down FSD development with this kind of safetyism, a hundred people die in car accidents (in the USA).

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
So, for the sake of progress, we should let FSD also kill people because people die at the wheel anyway?
- CheezeIt 5y ago
  Yes, exactly!
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    Even if it means that a loved one of yours would get run down by one of these, it's ok in the end, because it helped improve some billionaire's beta tech-demo?
    - yumraj 5y ago
      Chuck Norris should know better than to feed the trolls :)
      - 0des 5y ago
        I appreciate this playful response. Have a good rest of your weekend.
- ajross 5y ago
  How about we measure and see if FSD is killing people at all first? It's not an unanswerable problem, after all. There are 60k+ of these devices on the roads now. If the statistics say it's unsafe, pull it and shut the program down. Do they? If they don't, would you admit that it's probably a good thing to let it continue?
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    >How about we measure and see if FSD is killing people at all first? We just saw a FSD car run a red light and nearly hit pedestrians if the driver hadn't intervened.
    - ajross 5y ago
      Exactly. Let's measure. Is that rate higher than seen by median cars in the environment? I'd argue no, given how distressingly common that kind of incident is (certainly it's happened to me a bunch of times). But I'm willing to see data. I think where you're going here is toward an assertion that "any failure at all is unacceptable". And that seems innumerate to me. Cars fail. We're trying to replace a system here that is already fatally (literally!) flawed. The bar is very low.
      - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
        >I think where you're going here is toward an assertion that "any failure at all is unacceptable". We're trying to replace a system here that is already fatally (literally!) flawed. The bar is very low. Failure is not the issue when it comes to Tesla FSD, accountability is. For any mistakes human drivers makes, they have to pay up with money, have their license suspended, or with jail time, depending on the severity of their mistake. You fuck up, you pay the price. That's the contract under which human drivers are allowed on the road. Humans drivers are indeed flawed, but with our law and justice systems, we have accountability to keep those who break the law in check, while allowing freedom for those who respect it. It's one of the pillars of any civilized society. In my country, running a stop sign or a red light means you get your license suspended for a while. When a self driving Tesla does the same mistake, why doesn't Tesla's FSD AI have its "license" suspended as well? That's the issue.
  - ablekh 5y ago
    You can't measure that without stopping all Beta testers' interventions, which implies allowing the system to actually kill people.
- 0des 5y ago
  I take it you're the person who answers 'neither' when asked do you send the train left and kill 1 person vs sending it right and killing 100.
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    What's the trolley problem have to do with this situation? Are there accidents where death is unavoidable? Yes, they happen every single day, but after the investigations and trials are over, the parties found responsible pay up for those deaths in either money or jail-time, or both. Does that mean we should we allow machines to make deadly mistakes, especially when death IS avoidable? Absolutely not. We sentence humans for such mistakes. Machines (either their operator or their manufacturer) should also have the same liability. Those are two different things which you're trying to spin into a strawman.
    - 0des 5y ago
      Even this response is 'neither' :) I love it. Have a good weekend Chuck /me roundhouse kicks out of the thread
    - Msw242 5y ago
      Right, this is closer to the following scenario: Let's say you are on an overpass above a train, and a very fat man is in front of you. The train, if it isn't stopped, will kill 10 people on the tracks. But, if you push the person in front of the train, it will kill 11 people, and one of those would be you committing homocide. What do you do?
fassssst 5y ago
That presupposes that FSD is some major societal advancement.
arcticbull 5y ago
If safety is your #1 goal, you should be advocating for busses and trains. Those are infinitely safer than cars, self-driving or otherwise. [edit] Transit is 10x safer than private cars. [1] > The effects extend beyond individual trip choices, too: the report notes that transit-oriented communities are five times safer than auto-oriented communities. Better public transportation contributes to more compact development, which in turn reduces auto-miles traveled and produces safer speeds in those areas. On a national scale, too, the U.S. could make large advances in safety if each American committed to replacing as few as three car trips per month with transit trips. [1] https://mobilitylab.org/2016/09/08/transit-10-times-safer-driving-makes-communities-safer-says-new-apta-report/ https://mobilitylab.org/2016/09/08/transit-10-times-safer-dr...
- ajross 5y ago
  Busses and trains are safer than cars, but certainly not infinitely so. Nonetheless the infrastructure we have isn't built for them, and that won't change any time soon. If you want a suburban house with a yard, you need a passenger car. If you want to pick blackberries at the local farm, you need a passenger car. Making passenger cars safer through autonomy is clearly a good thing. By all means, advocate for more transit friendly urban centers. I'm with you. Just don't take away autonomy out of spite. Better cars are still better, even if they're not the solution you want.
  - Volundr 5y ago
    > Making passenger cars safer through autonomy is clearly a good thing. I'd actually disagree with this stance. Making passenger cars safer through autonomy is probably a good thing if we can actually make it safer than human drivers. I've yet to be convinced we are anywhere close to meeting the bar on that if. I assume we will eventually, but I'm not even sure I'll live to see it. It also ignores potential knock on effects, sure in isolation safer cars are better, but the reality is nothing exists in isolation. Could we save more lives if instead of spending the money we are on self-driving cars we instead invested it into our transit systems? As an example of knock on effects, affordable cars feels like an easy win right? Makes travel easier for everyone. But by and large affordable cars are what has allowed suburbs to exist, but there's an argument to be made that urban sprawl is far from ideal and that we'd be better of with denser communities and public transit.
orev 5y ago
You seem to be ignoring the last and most crucial point: > If they want to test it out on public roads, run the analysis and look at whenever it diverges from the drivers decisionmaking instead. It would be trivial to analyze the data after the fact to see where the AI model diverges from the human driver’s actions, decide which one was right, then implement the correct action. That wouldn’t slow down testing at all, as the only difference is who’s controlling the vehicle. In any beta test, someone still has to analyze the data.
cheeko1234 5y ago
Exactly! I expect to see nothing but negativity here regarding this. Making intelligence out of silicon isn't easy. Let the computers learn this way during the transition period, and finally we can remove human drivers from the road. More than 38,000 people die every year in crashes on U.S. roadways. And Tesla makes the safest cars: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the main independent organization that conducts crash tests on vehicles in the US, released the result of its latest tests on the Tesla Model Y and confirmed that it achieved the highest possible safety rating.
- TomVDB 5y ago
  Making a car that has the highest crash safety rating has nothing to do with the safety of their FSD solution.
- Volundr 5y ago
  >Tesla makes the safest cars: >The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the main independent organization that conducts crash tests on vehicles in the US, released the result of its latest tests on the Tesla Model Y and confirmed that it achieved the highest possible safety rating. That doesn't mean that Telsa makes the safest cars. There are roughly ~100 cars with that rating, and nothing suggests the Model Y is safer than any of the others. It's also important to note that that rating isn't based of real world data such as how often drivers actually crash and hurt other (ex, how often FSD fails), but rather how well the occupant is protected in the event of a crash.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
FSD isn’t a monolith, where speeding up one company gets us to the goal faster. We don’t even know if it’s possible with current tech, let alone with just cameras. Slowing down tesla might be just making a dead end safer. We don’t know, which is why we need safety standards.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago

So, for the sake of progress, we should let FSD also kill people because people die at the wheel anyway?

CheezeIt 5y ago
Yes, exactly!
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  Even if it means that a loved one of yours would get run down by one of these, it's ok in the end, because it helped improve some billionaire's beta tech-demo?
  - yumraj 5y ago
    Chuck Norris should know better than to feed the trolls :)
    - 0des 5y ago
      I appreciate this playful response. Have a good rest of your weekend.
ajross 5y ago
How about we measure and see if FSD is killing people at all first? It's not an unanswerable problem, after all. There are 60k+ of these devices on the roads now. If the statistics say it's unsafe, pull it and shut the program down. Do they? If they don't, would you admit that it's probably a good thing to let it continue?
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >How about we measure and see if FSD is killing people at all first? We just saw a FSD car run a red light and nearly hit pedestrians if the driver hadn't intervened.
  - ajross 5y ago
    Exactly. Let's measure. Is that rate higher than seen by median cars in the environment? I'd argue no, given how distressingly common that kind of incident is (certainly it's happened to me a bunch of times). But I'm willing to see data. I think where you're going here is toward an assertion that "any failure at all is unacceptable". And that seems innumerate to me. Cars fail. We're trying to replace a system here that is already fatally (literally!) flawed. The bar is very low.
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      >I think where you're going here is toward an assertion that "any failure at all is unacceptable". We're trying to replace a system here that is already fatally (literally!) flawed. The bar is very low. Failure is not the issue when it comes to Tesla FSD, accountability is. For any mistakes human drivers makes, they have to pay up with money, have their license suspended, or with jail time, depending on the severity of their mistake. You fuck up, you pay the price. That's the contract under which human drivers are allowed on the road. Humans drivers are indeed flawed, but with our law and justice systems, we have accountability to keep those who break the law in check, while allowing freedom for those who respect it. It's one of the pillars of any civilized society. In my country, running a stop sign or a red light means you get your license suspended for a while. When a self driving Tesla does the same mistake, why doesn't Tesla's FSD AI have its "license" suspended as well? That's the issue.
- ablekh 5y ago
  You can't measure that without stopping all Beta testers' interventions, which implies allowing the system to actually kill people.
0des 5y ago
I take it you're the person who answers 'neither' when asked do you send the train left and kill 1 person vs sending it right and killing 100.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  What's the trolley problem have to do with this situation? Are there accidents where death is unavoidable? Yes, they happen every single day, but after the investigations and trials are over, the parties found responsible pay up for those deaths in either money or jail-time, or both. Does that mean we should we allow machines to make deadly mistakes, especially when death IS avoidable? Absolutely not. We sentence humans for such mistakes. Machines (either their operator or their manufacturer) should also have the same liability. Those are two different things which you're trying to spin into a strawman.
  - 0des 5y ago
    Even this response is 'neither' :) I love it. Have a good weekend Chuck /me roundhouse kicks out of the thread
  - Msw242 5y ago
    Right, this is closer to the following scenario: Let's say you are on an overpass above a train, and a very fat man is in front of you. The train, if it isn't stopped, will kill 10 people on the tracks. But, if you push the person in front of the train, it will kill 11 people, and one of those would be you committing homocide. What do you do?

fassssst 5y ago

That presupposes that FSD is some major societal advancement.

arcticbull 5y ago

If safety is your #1 goal, you should be advocating for busses and trains. Those are infinitely safer than cars, self-driving or otherwise. [edit] Transit is 10x safer than private cars. [1] > The effects extend beyond individual trip choices, too: the report notes that transit-oriented communities are five times safer than auto-oriented communities. Better public transportation contributes to more compact development, which in turn reduces auto-miles traveled and produces safer speeds in those areas. On a national scale, too, the U.S. could make large advances in safety if each American committed to replacing as few as three car trips per month with transit trips. [1] https://mobilitylab.org/2016/09/08/transit-10-times-safer-driving-makes-communities-safer-says-new-apta-report/ https://mobilitylab.org/2016/09/08/transit-10-times-safer-dr...

ajross 5y ago
Busses and trains are safer than cars, but certainly not infinitely so. Nonetheless the infrastructure we have isn't built for them, and that won't change any time soon. If you want a suburban house with a yard, you need a passenger car. If you want to pick blackberries at the local farm, you need a passenger car. Making passenger cars safer through autonomy is clearly a good thing. By all means, advocate for more transit friendly urban centers. I'm with you. Just don't take away autonomy out of spite. Better cars are still better, even if they're not the solution you want.
- Volundr 5y ago
  > Making passenger cars safer through autonomy is clearly a good thing. I'd actually disagree with this stance. Making passenger cars safer through autonomy is probably a good thing if we can actually make it safer than human drivers. I've yet to be convinced we are anywhere close to meeting the bar on that if. I assume we will eventually, but I'm not even sure I'll live to see it. It also ignores potential knock on effects, sure in isolation safer cars are better, but the reality is nothing exists in isolation. Could we save more lives if instead of spending the money we are on self-driving cars we instead invested it into our transit systems? As an example of knock on effects, affordable cars feels like an easy win right? Makes travel easier for everyone. But by and large affordable cars are what has allowed suburbs to exist, but there's an argument to be made that urban sprawl is far from ideal and that we'd be better of with denser communities and public transit.

orev 5y ago

You seem to be ignoring the last and most crucial point: > If they want to test it out on public roads, run the analysis and look at whenever it diverges from the drivers decisionmaking instead. It would be trivial to analyze the data after the fact to see where the AI model diverges from the human driver’s actions, decide which one was right, then implement the correct action. That wouldn’t slow down testing at all, as the only difference is who’s controlling the vehicle. In any beta test, someone still has to analyze the data.

cheeko1234 5y ago

Exactly! I expect to see nothing but negativity here regarding this. Making intelligence out of silicon isn't easy. Let the computers learn this way during the transition period, and finally we can remove human drivers from the road. More than 38,000 people die every year in crashes on U.S. roadways. And Tesla makes the safest cars: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the main independent organization that conducts crash tests on vehicles in the US, released the result of its latest tests on the Tesla Model Y and confirmed that it achieved the highest possible safety rating.

TomVDB 5y ago
Making a car that has the highest crash safety rating has nothing to do with the safety of their FSD solution.
Volundr 5y ago
>Tesla makes the safest cars: >The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the main independent organization that conducts crash tests on vehicles in the US, released the result of its latest tests on the Tesla Model Y and confirmed that it achieved the highest possible safety rating. That doesn't mean that Telsa makes the safest cars. There are roughly ~100 cars with that rating, and nothing suggests the Model Y is safer than any of the others. It's also important to note that that rating isn't based of real world data such as how often drivers actually crash and hurt other (ex, how often FSD fails), but rather how well the occupant is protected in the event of a crash.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

FSD isn’t a monolith, where speeding up one company gets us to the goal faster. We don’t even know if it’s possible with current tech, let alone with just cameras. Slowing down tesla might be just making a dead end safer. We don’t know, which is why we need safety standards.