2 ms·

It's not disingenuous, The whole point is "my new system reduces crashes", if it doesn't, in the bottom line, then it doesn't.

qeternity 4y ago
I think OP is saying something slightly different: the Tesla numbers could be substantially worse if Autopilot simply disengages 1 millisecond before impact, it would not count as an Autopilot crash.
- bradfa 4y ago
  And there's recent articles where almost exactly this has been found. Autopilot deactivating 1 second before impact. In these kinds of cases, then yes, Autopilot is definitely partly at fault, but also the human is because Autopilot is only a level 2 system, the human is still responsible.
  - vagrantJin 4y ago
    > Autopilot is only a level 2 system, the human is still responsible. True. > In these kinds of cases, then yes, Autopilot is definitely partly at fault, Partly? Now that's called shilling.
- moralestapia 4y ago
  1 ms < 30 seconds, so that data is there as well. Also, >I'm no Tesla fan, but ... Sounds like he's vouching for them. Anyway, the argument is not against @bradfa, it is about whether AP makes driving safer or not.
- bitexploder 4y ago
  The WaPo article addresses that and counts them as AutoPilot engaged crashes. It seems to disengage 1 second before many of the crashes. It is nearly impossible to draw any conclusions about anything from this article. Other than, people use AutoPilot and sometimes they crash using it. The one interesting bit is where the damage happened on the cars and the hitting of stationary objects. Those seem like unforced autopilot errors.
wyldfire 4y ago
But with a raw number in the headline -- instead of some kind of ratio that could compare with/without the new system -- it's not that honest.
imdsm 4y ago
As has been stated, though, simply saying there have been 273 crashes by itself means nothing. If I said to you "following the introduction of a new drug there have been 1000 heart attacks in the USA this year so far", you may think, shit, 1000 people have had heart attacks, but when you realise that there are 800,000 heart attacks per year in the USA, making it about 400,000 pro-rata for June, reducing that down to 1000 would be amazing. So, 273 crashes. But what would that figure be without the system? We need the data to compare this to groups of drivers who don't use these systems. Otherwise, it's meaningless. The numbers are meaningless. Like values without units.
- moralestapia 4y ago
  Huh? But we DO have the data for "groups of drivers who don't use these systems" ...

qeternity 4y ago

I think OP is saying something slightly different: the Tesla numbers could be substantially worse if Autopilot simply disengages 1 millisecond before impact, it would not count as an Autopilot crash.

bradfa 4y ago
And there's recent articles where almost exactly this has been found. Autopilot deactivating 1 second before impact. In these kinds of cases, then yes, Autopilot is definitely partly at fault, but also the human is because Autopilot is only a level 2 system, the human is still responsible.
- vagrantJin 4y ago
  > Autopilot is only a level 2 system, the human is still responsible. True. > In these kinds of cases, then yes, Autopilot is definitely partly at fault, Partly? Now that's called shilling.
moralestapia 4y ago
1 ms < 30 seconds, so that data is there as well. Also, >I'm no Tesla fan, but ... Sounds like he's vouching for them. Anyway, the argument is not against @bradfa, it is about whether AP makes driving safer or not.
bitexploder 4y ago
The WaPo article addresses that and counts them as AutoPilot engaged crashes. It seems to disengage 1 second before many of the crashes. It is nearly impossible to draw any conclusions about anything from this article. Other than, people use AutoPilot and sometimes they crash using it. The one interesting bit is where the damage happened on the cars and the hitting of stationary objects. Those seem like unforced autopilot errors.

wyldfire 4y ago

But with a raw number in the headline -- instead of some kind of ratio that could compare with/without the new system -- it's not that honest.

imdsm 4y ago

As has been stated, though, simply saying there have been 273 crashes by itself means nothing. If I said to you "following the introduction of a new drug there have been 1000 heart attacks in the USA this year so far", you may think, shit, 1000 people have had heart attacks, but when you realise that there are 800,000 heart attacks per year in the USA, making it about 400,000 pro-rata for June, reducing that down to 1000 would be amazing. So, 273 crashes. But what would that figure be without the system? We need the data to compare this to groups of drivers who don't use these systems. Otherwise, it's meaningless. The numbers are meaningless. Like values without units.

moralestapia 4y ago
Huh? But we DO have the data for "groups of drivers who don't use these systems" ...