11 ms·

What's your criteria for "good enough"? I would like to point out that the criteria of "I don't want to see a single story in the news about self-driving accid

What's your criteria for "good enough"? I would like to point out that the criteria of "I don't want to see a single story in the news about self-driving accidents" is equivalent to an infinitely high standard that would immediately disqualify all humans from driving if applied evenly.

babypuncher 4y ago
My issue here is the labeling. Tesla sold their product under the name "Full Self Driving", which I think implies level 5 self driving. But what customers actually got is level 2 self driving.
nolok 4y ago
Unrelated to what he said. Tesla is at fault not because their system as flaws, they will always have, but because their marketing strongly implies it's something different than what it is, people believe the marketing (like in any market), and so for people it turns out the system does not work, since they compare it to expectations.
- dwighttk 4y ago
  I’ve talked to some people this year who thought Musk in 2017 was talking about current capabilities when he was talking about summoning his car to LA from NYC.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  It's unrelated to what he said now -- I should have quoted the post. In any case, yeah, the marketing is exaggerated, but it nags you if you stop paying attention. From a safety perspective, how does that not keep expectations in check?
  - nolok 4y ago
    Because it's not about MY expectations, it's about the expectations of the guy behind the wheel of the car crossing my path. Therefore I don't need it to be good enough to convince ME, I need to go be good enough to convince HIM not to abuse it, and given the large variety of him out there the system needs to have a very high safety bar.
    - jjoonathan 4y ago
      The guy behind the wheel gets beeped at if he stops paying attention and shut down if he keeps it up. Are you really arguing that this is insufficient to set the expectation that he should be paying attention? What, in your view, would be sufficient?
      - nolok 4y ago
        I understand what you're getting at, and I'm not even sure I have a question for you. Mercedes's system, ensuring that the cars does not disconnect for a minute (instead of seconds) feels safer to me, for exemple.
        jjoonathan 4y ago
        "I think one minute isn't safe enough. They should lockout for two minutes!" "I think two minutes isn't safe enough. They should lockout for three minutes!" "I think three minutes isn't safe enough. They should lockout for four minutes!" ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJxwvZ5SE_c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJxwvZ5SE_c This is a silly game without data. I'm open to the idea of escalating consequences to effect deterrence, but we need data, not "+1 forever" to figure out the correct threshold. In any case, that's a completely separate argument. My claim is that the current system seems more than sufficient to reset any mistaken expectations due to marketing. You don't seem to disagree, so I rest my case.
        nolok 4y ago
        > My claim is that the current system seems more than sufficient to reset any mistaken expectations due to marketing. You don't seem to disagree, so I rest my case. I do disagree, I just don't know the solution, this not being my job nor my field. As for the first part of your message, if you cannot see a gigantic differences between a matter of minutes, and just a few seconds, when talking about emergencies and the need to figure out what's happening to react in one or two seconds, then this is not a productive conversation.
altairprime 4y ago
No criteria will ever be “good enough”. Humans don’t evaluate their own mistake/crash/kill rate for strangers with the same reasoning and logic and emotion that they evaluate an outsider’s. Automated cars are an outsider, and so they’re held to an impossible standard: Zero kills, zero crashes, zero mistakes. Tesla absolutely hurt the chances for AI driving, but it’s not one hundred percent their fault that the US population is xeno-hostile to robots. They would have been better off adding a Clippy chatbot to their cars than self-driving, because then people would be excusing their car’s mistakes as they would another human’s.

babypuncher 4y ago

My issue here is the labeling. Tesla sold their product under the name "Full Self Driving", which I think implies level 5 self driving. But what customers actually got is level 2 self driving.

nolok 4y ago

Unrelated to what he said. Tesla is at fault not because their system as flaws, they will always have, but because their marketing strongly implies it's something different than what it is, people believe the marketing (like in any market), and so for people it turns out the system does not work, since they compare it to expectations.

dwighttk 4y ago
I’ve talked to some people this year who thought Musk in 2017 was talking about current capabilities when he was talking about summoning his car to LA from NYC.
jjoonathan 4y ago
It's unrelated to what he said now -- I should have quoted the post. In any case, yeah, the marketing is exaggerated, but it nags you if you stop paying attention. From a safety perspective, how does that not keep expectations in check?
- nolok 4y ago
  Because it's not about MY expectations, it's about the expectations of the guy behind the wheel of the car crossing my path. Therefore I don't need it to be good enough to convince ME, I need to go be good enough to convince HIM not to abuse it, and given the large variety of him out there the system needs to have a very high safety bar.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    The guy behind the wheel gets beeped at if he stops paying attention and shut down if he keeps it up. Are you really arguing that this is insufficient to set the expectation that he should be paying attention? What, in your view, would be sufficient?
    - nolok 4y ago
      I understand what you're getting at, and I'm not even sure I have a question for you. Mercedes's system, ensuring that the cars does not disconnect for a minute (instead of seconds) feels safer to me, for exemple.
      - jjoonathan 4y ago
        "I think one minute isn't safe enough. They should lockout for two minutes!" "I think two minutes isn't safe enough. They should lockout for three minutes!" "I think three minutes isn't safe enough. They should lockout for four minutes!" ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJxwvZ5SE_c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJxwvZ5SE_c This is a silly game without data. I'm open to the idea of escalating consequences to effect deterrence, but we need data, not "+1 forever" to figure out the correct threshold. In any case, that's a completely separate argument. My claim is that the current system seems more than sufficient to reset any mistaken expectations due to marketing. You don't seem to disagree, so I rest my case.
        nolok 4y ago
        > My claim is that the current system seems more than sufficient to reset any mistaken expectations due to marketing. You don't seem to disagree, so I rest my case. I do disagree, I just don't know the solution, this not being my job nor my field. As for the first part of your message, if you cannot see a gigantic differences between a matter of minutes, and just a few seconds, when talking about emergencies and the need to figure out what's happening to react in one or two seconds, then this is not a productive conversation.

altairprime 4y ago

No criteria will ever be “good enough”. Humans don’t evaluate their own mistake/crash/kill rate for strangers with the same reasoning and logic and emotion that they evaluate an outsider’s. Automated cars are an outsider, and so they’re held to an impossible standard: Zero kills, zero crashes, zero mistakes. Tesla absolutely hurt the chances for AI driving, but it’s not one hundred percent their fault that the US population is xeno-hostile to robots. They would have been better off adding a Clippy chatbot to their cars than self-driving, because then people would be excusing their car’s mistakes as they would another human’s.