3 ms·

I think proponents underestimate how much testing is needed to make such a system actually safe. edit: FSD is clearly still alpha; ive seen it steer towards on

by petee 5y ago

I think proponents underestimate how much testing is needed to make such a system actually safe. edit: FSD is clearly still alpha; ive seen it steer towards on coming traffic, and almost cut off large vehicles but for human intervention.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
I think online commentators don't understand how low the general public's bar for "safe" is. People will be elated if they can buy a car that can chauffeur them around as well as a teenager who's had their learner's permit for two days. At least with the car you're already in the driver's seat and don't need to articulate to it what it's doing wrong. Sure you'll have to keep an eye on it to make sure it's not setting itself up for a situation it can't handle but you have to keep an eye on the teenager too. Crappy half-baked automation is prevalent the world over in all sorts of situations. The normal, unwashed, much derided masses are perfectly capable of learning its quirks so they can keep it out of trouble. The idea that a car "can't see" bollards or bike lane marking or partial lane obstructions or whatever is not a hard one for people to grasp.
- thaway2839 5y ago
- oauea 5y ago
  and who's going to be responsible when that car drives full speed into a mother and her 3 kids?
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Why don't you plug that situation into my analogy and see what happens? The existing legal framework is already set up to handle this. Considering how strongly HN advocates for strict liability for car drivers I find your reply baffling. Why wouldn't the driver be liable?
    - oauea 5y ago
      What driver? It's self driving. Companies putting machines on the road that murder innocent children will surely be held liable.
- ohgodplsno 5y ago
  The solution to "teenagers having their learner's permit for two days are dangerous" is not to put an untested, shitty OpenCV car on the road, it's to make your driving tests and lessons more than just "drive twice around the block". I've seen Teslas do things learners would never do.

by petee 5y ago

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

I think online commentators don't understand how low the general public's bar for "safe" is. People will be elated if they can buy a car that can chauffeur them around as well as a teenager who's had their learner's permit for two days. At least with the car you're already in the driver's seat and don't need to articulate to it what it's doing wrong. Sure you'll have to keep an eye on it to make sure it's not setting itself up for a situation it can't handle but you have to keep an eye on the teenager too. Crappy half-baked automation is prevalent the world over in all sorts of situations. The normal, unwashed, much derided masses are perfectly capable of learning its quirks so they can keep it out of trouble. The idea that a car "can't see" bollards or bike lane marking or partial lane obstructions or whatever is not a hard one for people to grasp.

thaway2839 5y ago
oauea 5y ago
and who's going to be responsible when that car drives full speed into a mother and her 3 kids?
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Why don't you plug that situation into my analogy and see what happens? The existing legal framework is already set up to handle this. Considering how strongly HN advocates for strict liability for car drivers I find your reply baffling. Why wouldn't the driver be liable?
  - oauea 5y ago
    What driver? It's self driving. Companies putting machines on the road that murder innocent children will surely be held liable.
ohgodplsno 5y ago
The solution to "teenagers having their learner's permit for two days are dangerous" is not to put an untested, shitty OpenCV car on the road, it's to make your driving tests and lessons more than just "drive twice around the block". I've seen Teslas do things learners would never do.