4 ms·

It’s rather telling that the reply saying “show me evidence” is being voted down while the assertions mixed with disdain for Musk are being voted up. Look, I g

It’s rather telling that the reply saying “show me evidence” is being voted down while the assertions mixed with disdain for Musk are being voted up. Look, I get that Musk isn’t popular here. But please, give me some hope for humanity and at least pretend to care about facts and evidence.

jackmott42 4y ago
Our point of view is that we should not allow beta self driving software on the roads until it is proven safe. We do not know how safe it is, nor can we know because Tesla controls that data and is not transparent with it.
- simondotau 4y ago
  Should we allow teenagers to drive on the road before they have proven to be safe? We don’t know how safe they are.
  - jackmott42 4y ago
    No, we should require that they pass a driving test, pay for insurance, and register their vehicle with license plates. If I were emperor I would raise the driving age to 18 as well. vote often, vote early
    - simondotau 4y ago
      A person who was passed a driving test, paid for insurance and registered the vehicle is responsible for the car at all times, even when FSD beta is operating. Come to Australia, the driving age here is 18. (And for your first three years as a licensed driver, you have to show plates to indicate your lack of experience because, unlike in the stupid USA, we don’t assume that passing one driving test is enough to qualify you as a “good driver”.)
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    No, and we don't. That's why driving instruction and driving tests exist.
    - simondotau 4y ago
      Thirty thousand people die on US roads every year because of the actions of people who received driving instruction and passed a driving test.
      - kibwen 4y ago
        And ubiquitous FSD could easily make that number worse, not better.
      - rootusrootus 4y ago
        This is a better argument for improving training and testing than it is in lowering the bar and letting a buggy computer program drive.
        jjoonathan 4y ago
        Do you really think there's more room to improve human nature than AI technology? I don't. I think they both have a ceiling and that the ceiling on AI is much higher.
        rootusrootus 4y ago
        Yes? The largest causes of accidents are fairly well understood, if we decided it were worth the effort. Not coincidentally, this is why all the arguments for self-driving fall flat. Being as good as an average driver is a low bar. Being as good as a median driver is a harder task. But it's the latter that is the bar we have to pass if self-driving cars are ever to become mainstream.
        jjoonathan 4y ago
        Deaths = N*average, not N*median.
- slg 4y ago
  I totally understand where you are coming from. However, I don’t think it is possible to prove this type of technology is safe in the real world without lots of data of it being used in the real world. Requiring proof first like you suggest creates a catch-22 situation in which self driving technology can never be released.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    Automakers already use proving grounds. We can set a minimum standard for FSD before turning it loose with amateur drivers.
    - slg 4y ago
      You can’t test self driving tech the same way you can test most safety technology. It is easy to test something like an airbag. You throw dummies in the seats and run the car into a wall. There is no equivalent for self driving tech. The tech needs to be able to handle any weird situation that humans and nature throw at it. You therefore need a huge number or interactions, billions of miles worth, to be confident in its safety. You can’t just put a car through a test track to see if it is safe. The range of situations the technology needs to be able to respond to is too large to fully test like this. It is a perfectly valid policy to want that proof ahead of time. I’m just pointing out that this requirement would effectively kill development of this technology for the foreseeable future.
      - rootusrootus 4y ago
        Is Tesla using customer cars for training data? That should be very noticeable, it is a lot of data that would be getting fed back. If they're not, then the billions of miles driven by customers isn't relevant, and the same "can't just put a car through a test track" problem exists at the training level.
        jjoonathan 4y ago
        Yes they are, yes it is very noticeable, and yes it is a lot of very important data that could not have been collected on a test track.
bmitc 4y ago
> Look, I get that Musk isn’t popular here. But please, give me some hope for humanity and at least pretend to care about facts and evidence. The onus is on Tesla to provide honest and accurate data, and they have shown time and time again that they are not capable of doing so.

jackmott42 4y ago

Our point of view is that we should not allow beta self driving software on the roads until it is proven safe. We do not know how safe it is, nor can we know because Tesla controls that data and is not transparent with it.

simondotau 4y ago
Should we allow teenagers to drive on the road before they have proven to be safe? We don’t know how safe they are.
- jackmott42 4y ago
  No, we should require that they pass a driving test, pay for insurance, and register their vehicle with license plates. If I were emperor I would raise the driving age to 18 as well. vote often, vote early
  - simondotau 4y ago
    A person who was passed a driving test, paid for insurance and registered the vehicle is responsible for the car at all times, even when FSD beta is operating. Come to Australia, the driving age here is 18. (And for your first three years as a licensed driver, you have to show plates to indicate your lack of experience because, unlike in the stupid USA, we don’t assume that passing one driving test is enough to qualify you as a “good driver”.)
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  No, and we don't. That's why driving instruction and driving tests exist.
  - simondotau 4y ago
    Thirty thousand people die on US roads every year because of the actions of people who received driving instruction and passed a driving test.
    - kibwen 4y ago
      And ubiquitous FSD could easily make that number worse, not better.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      This is a better argument for improving training and testing than it is in lowering the bar and letting a buggy computer program drive.
      - jjoonathan 4y ago
        Do you really think there's more room to improve human nature than AI technology? I don't. I think they both have a ceiling and that the ceiling on AI is much higher.
        rootusrootus 4y ago
        Yes? The largest causes of accidents are fairly well understood, if we decided it were worth the effort. Not coincidentally, this is why all the arguments for self-driving fall flat. Being as good as an average driver is a low bar. Being as good as a median driver is a harder task. But it's the latter that is the bar we have to pass if self-driving cars are ever to become mainstream.
        jjoonathan 4y ago
        Deaths = N*average, not N*median.
slg 4y ago
I totally understand where you are coming from. However, I don’t think it is possible to prove this type of technology is safe in the real world without lots of data of it being used in the real world. Requiring proof first like you suggest creates a catch-22 situation in which self driving technology can never be released.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Automakers already use proving grounds. We can set a minimum standard for FSD before turning it loose with amateur drivers.
  - slg 4y ago
    You can’t test self driving tech the same way you can test most safety technology. It is easy to test something like an airbag. You throw dummies in the seats and run the car into a wall. There is no equivalent for self driving tech. The tech needs to be able to handle any weird situation that humans and nature throw at it. You therefore need a huge number or interactions, billions of miles worth, to be confident in its safety. You can’t just put a car through a test track to see if it is safe. The range of situations the technology needs to be able to respond to is too large to fully test like this. It is a perfectly valid policy to want that proof ahead of time. I’m just pointing out that this requirement would effectively kill development of this technology for the foreseeable future.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      Is Tesla using customer cars for training data? That should be very noticeable, it is a lot of data that would be getting fed back. If they're not, then the billions of miles driven by customers isn't relevant, and the same "can't just put a car through a test track" problem exists at the training level.
      - jjoonathan 4y ago
        Yes they are, yes it is very noticeable, and yes it is a lot of very important data that could not have been collected on a test track.

bmitc 4y ago

> Look, I get that Musk isn’t popular here. But please, give me some hope for humanity and at least pretend to care about facts and evidence. The onus is on Tesla to provide honest and accurate data, and they have shown time and time again that they are not capable of doing so.