4 ms·

> If humans wouldn't have made that mistake... it's certainly not safer than humans in that regard. I don't think you understand how this works. If you prevent

> If humans wouldn't have made that mistake... it's certainly not safer than humans in that regard. I don't think you understand how this works. If you prevent more accidents than you cause, then it's safer. Period. It DOESN'T MATTER if those accidents you caused would not have been caused by a human. If you cause less accidents than humans on average, then it is safer. And Tesla has shown that data that even among it's own cars it's safer.

freejazz 4y ago
We are just pushing back and forth where you measure safety at. The site of the incident? At scale? You are saying at scale. You are saying this is unequivocally true but do not provide any reasoning as to why. It might be safer measured on a cross country trip as opposed to driving in the city. I don't really leave the city that much. So, it might not actually be safer for me. I hope you can genuinely engage with this as opposed to being so purposefully obtuse. > And Tesla has shown that data that even among it's own cars it's safer. I'm not going to trust the data from people who designed a system that immediately turns off the second it becomes apparent it would generate an adverse statistic. Get real.
- mlindner 4y ago
  > You are saying at scale. That's all anyone has been talking about in this thread from my reading. There was no pushing back and forth. > I'm not going to trust the data from people who designed a system that immediately turns off the second it becomes apparent it would generate an adverse statistic. You're going to need citations for that. There's no demonstrations I've ever seen showing that.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    >That's all anyone has been talking about in this thread from my reading. There was no pushing back and forth. Except for my post... that you responded? I'd have thought you read that, although I could be mistaken. >You're going to need citations for that. There's no demonstrations I've ever seen showing that. https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-investigation-shutoff-crash/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-invest... dang - all I had to do was google "Tesla FDS turns itself off"
    - mlindner 4y ago
      That link you provided doesn't show any demonstrations showing it.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        So? It's clearly happening, that's what the NHTSA found.
- lostsock 4y ago
  Tesla counts any incidents that occurred within five seconds of FSD/Autopilot disengaging as being "under autopilot". Given the driver is meant to be paying attention and ready to take over at any time 5 seconds is plenty of time to take over (and come to a complete stop from ~70mph)
  - freejazz 4y ago
    Oh cool, it'll point your car at a child and give you 5 seconds to fix its own mistake! How generous! What a great system! Fully autonomous driving except for when it makes a mistake...

freejazz 4y ago

We are just pushing back and forth where you measure safety at. The site of the incident? At scale? You are saying at scale. You are saying this is unequivocally true but do not provide any reasoning as to why. It might be safer measured on a cross country trip as opposed to driving in the city. I don't really leave the city that much. So, it might not actually be safer for me. I hope you can genuinely engage with this as opposed to being so purposefully obtuse. > And Tesla has shown that data that even among it's own cars it's safer. I'm not going to trust the data from people who designed a system that immediately turns off the second it becomes apparent it would generate an adverse statistic. Get real.

mlindner 4y ago
> You are saying at scale. That's all anyone has been talking about in this thread from my reading. There was no pushing back and forth. > I'm not going to trust the data from people who designed a system that immediately turns off the second it becomes apparent it would generate an adverse statistic. You're going to need citations for that. There's no demonstrations I've ever seen showing that.
- freejazz 4y ago
  >That's all anyone has been talking about in this thread from my reading. There was no pushing back and forth. Except for my post... that you responded? I'd have thought you read that, although I could be mistaken. >You're going to need citations for that. There's no demonstrations I've ever seen showing that. https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-investigation-shutoff-crash/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-invest... dang - all I had to do was google "Tesla FDS turns itself off"
  - mlindner 4y ago
    That link you provided doesn't show any demonstrations showing it.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      So? It's clearly happening, that's what the NHTSA found.
lostsock 4y ago
Tesla counts any incidents that occurred within five seconds of FSD/Autopilot disengaging as being "under autopilot". Given the driver is meant to be paying attention and ready to take over at any time 5 seconds is plenty of time to take over (and come to a complete stop from ~70mph)
- freejazz 4y ago
  Oh cool, it'll point your car at a child and give you 5 seconds to fix its own mistake! How generous! What a great system! Fully autonomous driving except for when it makes a mistake...