3 ms·
> Human drivers include those on drugs. I'm guessing that high drivers account for at most a sliver of incidents, but moreover, I don't see the purpose in comp
by throwaway894345 5y ago
> Human drivers include those on drugs.
I'm guessing that high drivers account for at most a sliver of incidents, but moreover, I don't see the purpose in comparing autopilot to only the best drivers. If someone who would otherwise drive high uses autopilot, isn't that an improvement? If someone who would otherwise text while driving uses autopilot, isn't that an improvement? If someone who is just a worse driver than autopilot uses autopilot, isn't that an improvement?
- bluGill 5y agoDepends on the goals. If you want people to use autopilot then you need to convince them that it is better than good humans. If you only want the high, then compare to them. I already know humans are bad drivers, but autopilot is a big unknown.
- throwaway894345 5y agoThe goal is improving safety. To improve, autopilot needn't be safer than the best driver, it only needs to be safer than the average driver. Even if adoption depends on proving autopilot is better than good humans, if it fails this test, then people just don't use it and safety is no worse than it is today. > autopilot is a big unknown We really just need to know whether Teslas get into more accidents or more severe accidents than other vehicles (modulo some adjusting for demographic differences among drivers). If Teslas contribute to fewer/less-severe accidents, then it demonstrates that they're safer overall. Whether they get there via autopilot or other means is an implementation detail. In any case, Tesla isn't just going to ship unsafe software because it would destroy their brand (every Tesla incident gets 1000x more scrutiny than other brands).
- bluGill 5y agoI really want to see an independent scientific evaluation of how safe Tesla autopilot really is.
- throwaway894345 5y agoAgreed.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]