3 ms·

Even assuming one "event" per mile that needs to be handled satisfactorily (pothole, pedestrian, inconsistent embedded reflectors, chipped or graffitied sign, .

by hansvm 4y ago

Even assuming one "event" per mile that needs to be handled satisfactorily (pothole, pedestrian, inconsistent embedded reflectors, chipped or graffitied sign, ....), 99.9999% is about the same reliability as the rate that human drivers crash in the US, and fatal crashes are around 100x less common. If, as in this comment thread, self-driving cars are being proposed as a solution to the deaths caused by human ineptitude then 99.9999% seems like an absolute bare minimum for reliability.

fastball 4y ago
Well in terms of fatalities, FSD actually has a 100% reliability rating, so presumably it's ok for it to be deployed, right?
- hansvm 4y ago
  Not really: - All FSD miles put together are still only 1/3 of the average miles needed to generate a fatal crash using a human driver. - The vast majority of those miles are in ideal conditions. - A cursory glance indicates there have been 15 FSD-induced fatalities.
  - fastball 4y ago
    - Fair point, guess we will see in the next 60m miles, which by the sounds of it will be in the next few months. - Tesla's FSD in particular (being an entirely vision-based system) likely operates in less-than-ideal conditions much more often than competitors. - Where are you finding the "15 FSD-induced fatalities" stat?
    - hansvm 4y ago
      - Another 60m miles will be suggestive, but you need at least 2x-3x the ordinary fatality mile count to even have a 90% confidence that the results weren't a fluke. - Tesla's FSD might operate in less-than-ideal conditions more often than competitors, but I'd posit that the typical human driver operates in much less ideal conditions than FSD. Humans are explicitly instructed to not enable it in sketchy scenarios and to be fully attentive when it's in control, and performance in that environment is at best an upper bound on what you might expect if deployed more widely. - I skimmed the stats from https://www.tesladeaths.com https://www.tesladeaths.com and was hoping Cunningham's law would kick in if that was too far off base.
      - fastball 4y ago
        Autopilot is not the same as FSD. There are no recorded deaths related to FSD.

by hansvm 4y ago

fastball 4y ago

Well in terms of fatalities, FSD actually has a 100% reliability rating, so presumably it's ok for it to be deployed, right?

hansvm 4y ago
Not really: - All FSD miles put together are still only 1/3 of the average miles needed to generate a fatal crash using a human driver. - The vast majority of those miles are in ideal conditions. - A cursory glance indicates there have been 15 FSD-induced fatalities.
- fastball 4y ago
  - Fair point, guess we will see in the next 60m miles, which by the sounds of it will be in the next few months. - Tesla's FSD in particular (being an entirely vision-based system) likely operates in less-than-ideal conditions much more often than competitors. - Where are you finding the "15 FSD-induced fatalities" stat?
  - hansvm 4y ago
    - Another 60m miles will be suggestive, but you need at least 2x-3x the ordinary fatality mile count to even have a 90% confidence that the results weren't a fluke. - Tesla's FSD might operate in less-than-ideal conditions more often than competitors, but I'd posit that the typical human driver operates in much less ideal conditions than FSD. Humans are explicitly instructed to not enable it in sketchy scenarios and to be fully attentive when it's in control, and performance in that environment is at best an upper bound on what you might expect if deployed more widely. - I skimmed the stats from https://www.tesladeaths.com https://www.tesladeaths.com and was hoping Cunningham's law would kick in if that was too far off base.
    - fastball 4y ago
      Autopilot is not the same as FSD. There are no recorded deaths related to FSD.