4 ms·

Why? Human drivers do all of those things. Why should I care if I'm killed by a computer or a human? At least if I'm killed by a computer, the data will go i

Why? Human drivers do all of those things. Why should I care if I'm killed by a computer or a human? At least if I'm killed by a computer, the data will go into the training set and make future computers safer. But human drivers will learn nothing.

Alupis 4y ago
Despite the narrative being spun by FSD companies like Tesla and the rest - human drivers are actually really good at navigating complex, dynamic situations. These systems however, are not. I think most folks would rather not be killed because Elon's ego decided a decade ago that Tesla would never consider Lidar sensors, for example, despite the mounting evidence simple cameras are not sufficient. Recall the Toyota stuck accelerator pedal issue years back? There are people who still refuse to own a Toyota. What about the Boeing 737-MAX fiasco? An entirely software related bug caused a statistically trivial and insignificant amount of people to lose their lives - yet today there are still people who will never fly on a Boeing aircraft again, despite the issue being resolved. People will not tolerate loss of life from these systems. They must be substantially better than the average human for the public to be interested.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  > human drivers are actually really good at navigating complex situations. These systems however, are not. This determination needs to be made with data. As far as I can tell there is no conclusive evidence that Teslas on autopilot are involved in more crashes per mile than human drivers, and some evidence that it is safer, though that comes from Tesla, so not giving that much weight. So either it's somewhere close to as safe as human drivers, or data collection in this area is just really bad. I don't know which.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    The evidence provided by the likes of Tesla does not compare to real-world driving. They cannot produce that evidence yet, despite however many millions of miles on test circuits and well-known roads they want to tout - it's a false statistic designed to deliberately mislead the public into thinking the software is better than it really is. The burden of proof is on the FSD companies, not average drivers. The likes of Tesla have to prove their software is far superior to human drivers - and so far they have failed to do so. There are far too many FSD beta videos out recorded by real users that demonstrate obvious safety issues. The software is just not there yet, and may not be there for a long time, if ever. Articles like this come out far too often to just be discarded as media "hit" pieces.
    - westurner 4y ago
      No, you need a hard metric like "Accident rate per million miles driven" in order to compare the relative hazard.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  > despite the issue being resolved. Boeing fixed their management/culture problems?
  - Alupis 4y ago
    I'm unsure what that has to do with a software bug?

Alupis 4y ago

Despite the narrative being spun by FSD companies like Tesla and the rest - human drivers are actually really good at navigating complex, dynamic situations. These systems however, are not. I think most folks would rather not be killed because Elon's ego decided a decade ago that Tesla would never consider Lidar sensors, for example, despite the mounting evidence simple cameras are not sufficient. Recall the Toyota stuck accelerator pedal issue years back? There are people who still refuse to own a Toyota. What about the Boeing 737-MAX fiasco? An entirely software related bug caused a statistically trivial and insignificant amount of people to lose their lives - yet today there are still people who will never fly on a Boeing aircraft again, despite the issue being resolved. People will not tolerate loss of life from these systems. They must be substantially better than the average human for the public to be interested.

fallingknife 4y ago
> human drivers are actually really good at navigating complex situations. These systems however, are not. This determination needs to be made with data. As far as I can tell there is no conclusive evidence that Teslas on autopilot are involved in more crashes per mile than human drivers, and some evidence that it is safer, though that comes from Tesla, so not giving that much weight. So either it's somewhere close to as safe as human drivers, or data collection in this area is just really bad. I don't know which.
- Alupis 4y ago
  The evidence provided by the likes of Tesla does not compare to real-world driving. They cannot produce that evidence yet, despite however many millions of miles on test circuits and well-known roads they want to tout - it's a false statistic designed to deliberately mislead the public into thinking the software is better than it really is. The burden of proof is on the FSD companies, not average drivers. The likes of Tesla have to prove their software is far superior to human drivers - and so far they have failed to do so. There are far too many FSD beta videos out recorded by real users that demonstrate obvious safety issues. The software is just not there yet, and may not be there for a long time, if ever. Articles like this come out far too often to just be discarded as media "hit" pieces.
  - westurner 4y ago
    No, you need a hard metric like "Accident rate per million miles driven" in order to compare the relative hazard.
lamontcg 4y ago
> despite the issue being resolved. Boeing fixed their management/culture problems?
- Alupis 4y ago
  I'm unsure what that has to do with a software bug?