3 ms·

uh huh. why do you think it's reasonable to conclude that this system is safe given that the reported data is based on faulty analysis [0] and inexplicably exem

uh huh. why do you think it's reasonable to conclude that this system is safe given that the reported data is based on faulty analysis [0] and inexplicably exempt from reporting requirements for testing self-driving cars? [0] https://jalopnik.com/feds-tesla-autosteer-safety-investigation-was-bullshit-1832542003 https://jalopnik.com/feds-tesla-autosteer-safety-investigati...

Retric 5y ago
I don’t think it is safe. I just don’t have data showing it’s terrible.
- andbberger 5y ago
  ok but you think it's reasonable to let them test their unproven software (which has already killed people) on public roads anyway?
  - Retric 5y ago
    Yes, as there is no other way to prove it’s safe. Aka your suggesting an impossible standard for any company to meet. Further the only reasonable standard is roughly average human competency. As soon as a tired driver can turn on self driving and be safer on the road then banning that technology has a real cost.
    - andbberger 5y ago
      of course there is, it's what every other company is doing: safety drivers with reporting requirements
      - Retric 5y ago
        Testing hardware and software via safety drivers on public roads doesn’t actually prove safety in the hands of the general public. Just as FSD being released to the safest drivers first doesn’t prove safety in the hands of the general public. The general public doesn’t use products like you might assume. For example toilet plungers have killed or seriously injured people and not because they where used as a weapon.
        andbberger 5y ago
        what??? they're not subject user error. that's the whole point, and how many times fallible humans had to take over is exactly what the disengagement report tracks
        Retric 5y ago
        The platonic ideal self driving system possible doesn’t prevent a tire blowout from poor maintenance etc. Similarly a test fleet isn’t going to replicate the publics actual origins, destinations, and time of day. Something as simple as people going to bars more because the self driving system can get them home would mean a different risk profile.

Retric 5y ago

I don’t think it is safe. I just don’t have data showing it’s terrible.

andbberger 5y ago
ok but you think it's reasonable to let them test their unproven software (which has already killed people) on public roads anyway?
- Retric 5y ago
  Yes, as there is no other way to prove it’s safe. Aka your suggesting an impossible standard for any company to meet. Further the only reasonable standard is roughly average human competency. As soon as a tired driver can turn on self driving and be safer on the road then banning that technology has a real cost.
  - andbberger 5y ago
    of course there is, it's what every other company is doing: safety drivers with reporting requirements
    - Retric 5y ago
      Testing hardware and software via safety drivers on public roads doesn’t actually prove safety in the hands of the general public. Just as FSD being released to the safest drivers first doesn’t prove safety in the hands of the general public. The general public doesn’t use products like you might assume. For example toilet plungers have killed or seriously injured people and not because they where used as a weapon.
      - andbberger 5y ago
        what??? they're not subject user error. that's the whole point, and how many times fallible humans had to take over is exactly what the disengagement report tracks
        Retric 5y ago
        The platonic ideal self driving system possible doesn’t prevent a tire blowout from poor maintenance etc. Similarly a test fleet isn’t going to replicate the publics actual origins, destinations, and time of day. Something as simple as people going to bars more because the self driving system can get them home would mean a different risk profile.