5 ms·

You're not wrong, but as someone who is forced to share the road with FSD Teslas, I'm happy that he was willing to show what one is capable of doing without pro

You're not wrong, but as someone who is forced to share the road with FSD Teslas, I'm happy that he was willing to show what one is capable of doing without proper interference.

zionic 5y ago
Well we all share the air with aircraft. How would you feel about a pilot “demonstrating” controlled flight into terrain on autopilot? I assure you my Lear’s autopilot would do it.
- jjulius 5y ago
  With nary a civilian or other airplane within impact distance, like in the video? Sure, let's do it!
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Most of us don't have Lears to test that hypothesis out.
- AniseAbyss 5y ago
  Aviation is severely regulated. After decades of horrendous accidents... Self driving is new and it is painfully obvious the government hasn't figured out how to deal with it yet.
  - juanani 5y ago
- HWR_14 5y ago
  When the risk of an airplane crashing into my car/my bike/me as a pedestrian is 1/1,000,000 as likely as a car collision, we can talk. Meanwhile, if you want to splat into the edge of a mountain, I really have no feelings about it. Or did you mean you would use your Lear's autopilot to try to do some extremely low level flying over a highway?
- FabHK 5y ago
  I think the point you're trying to make (maybe) is: aviation autopilots will also lead to disaster if used improperly, but that doesn't imply that they're bad or deficient technology (but rather that they were used improperly). First, aviation autopilots are a mature, tested, reliable, certified technology and are deployed only under narrow, precisely delineated circumstances by trained professionals (not a beta product tested "in production" by amateurs). Next, though, you imply that the FSD was used somewhat irresponsibly or improperly here. I fail to see that. He used it as it was supposed to, and when he saw that it was swerving into the pylon, he reacted immediately (within the limits of human reaction time), which was insufficient. How was that improper use?
jfoster 5y ago
That cars are capable of crashing was known before FSD was even a thing. Statistically, you should be much more afraid of the cars driven by human drivers, because they can do everything FSD can, and there's truly not many on the road using FSD.
- mherdeg 5y ago
  The statistic I wonder about is -- self-driving cars will shrink the pool of available donor organs by about 20% ( https://futurism.com/neoscope/self-driving-cars-will-save-lives-on-roads-but-will-they-cause-donor-organ-shortages https://futurism.com/neoscope/self-driving-cars-will-save-li...). Is there an externality that should be priced in here? How?
  - klodolph 5y ago
    Think of it this way... those organs are still being used to save someone's life, they're just doing it by staying in the original body.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      In a strict utilitarian analysis, they are saving one person's life, but could probably save several peoples' lives and dramatically improve the quality of life of others.
      - klodolph 5y ago
        Ah yes, the "let's kill people to get their organs" argument, which just seems so reasonable...
        HWR_14 5y ago
        It's certainly not reasonable. But neither is responding to a question about the side effects of fewer donations as a result of car crashes with a dismissal about how the people in the cars will be alive.

You're not wrong, but as someone who is forced to share the road with FSD Teslas, I'm happy that he was willing to show what one is capable of doing without proper interference.

zionic 5y ago

Well we all share the air with aircraft. How would you feel about a pilot “demonstrating” controlled flight into terrain on autopilot? I assure you my Lear’s autopilot would do it.

jjulius 5y ago
With nary a civilian or other airplane within impact distance, like in the video? Sure, let's do it!
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Most of us don't have Lears to test that hypothesis out.
AniseAbyss 5y ago
Aviation is severely regulated. After decades of horrendous accidents... Self driving is new and it is painfully obvious the government hasn't figured out how to deal with it yet.
- juanani 5y ago
HWR_14 5y ago
When the risk of an airplane crashing into my car/my bike/me as a pedestrian is 1/1,000,000 as likely as a car collision, we can talk. Meanwhile, if you want to splat into the edge of a mountain, I really have no feelings about it. Or did you mean you would use your Lear's autopilot to try to do some extremely low level flying over a highway?
FabHK 5y ago
I think the point you're trying to make (maybe) is: aviation autopilots will also lead to disaster if used improperly, but that doesn't imply that they're bad or deficient technology (but rather that they were used improperly). First, aviation autopilots are a mature, tested, reliable, certified technology and are deployed only under narrow, precisely delineated circumstances by trained professionals (not a beta product tested "in production" by amateurs). Next, though, you imply that the FSD was used somewhat irresponsibly or improperly here. I fail to see that. He used it as it was supposed to, and when he saw that it was swerving into the pylon, he reacted immediately (within the limits of human reaction time), which was insufficient. How was that improper use?

jfoster 5y ago

That cars are capable of crashing was known before FSD was even a thing. Statistically, you should be much more afraid of the cars driven by human drivers, because they can do everything FSD can, and there's truly not many on the road using FSD.

mherdeg 5y ago
The statistic I wonder about is -- self-driving cars will shrink the pool of available donor organs by about 20% ( https://futurism.com/neoscope/self-driving-cars-will-save-lives-on-roads-but-will-they-cause-donor-organ-shortages https://futurism.com/neoscope/self-driving-cars-will-save-li...). Is there an externality that should be priced in here? How?
- klodolph 5y ago
  Think of it this way... those organs are still being used to save someone's life, they're just doing it by staying in the original body.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    In a strict utilitarian analysis, they are saving one person's life, but could probably save several peoples' lives and dramatically improve the quality of life of others.
    - klodolph 5y ago
      Ah yes, the "let's kill people to get their organs" argument, which just seems so reasonable...
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        It's certainly not reasonable. But neither is responding to a question about the side effects of fewer donations as a result of car crashes with a dismissal about how the people in the cars will be alive.