3 ms·

I don't want to sound pedantic. If you would put a camera in a 1000 cars fully driven by humans and film each for a day, how many of such recordings could be fo

I don't want to sound pedantic. If you would put a camera in a 1000 cars fully driven by humans and film each for a day, how many of such recordings could be found? I guess a handful. The real question is... how far off is this technology from practical human driving and when (not whether) it will surpass.

mikestew 3y ago
If you would put a camera in a 1000 cars fully driven by humans and film each for a day, how many of such recordings could be found? Already with the whataboutism? Automated driving is supposed to promise safer driving than humans, not bug-for-bug compatibility.
- wilg 3y ago
  This is an asinine argument. It’s not necessarily safer right out of the gate! Maybe they just need to fix the bug.
  - nuancebydefault 3y ago
    Every bug needs solving. But also: every bug will _never_ be solved. Why would you think any system or even component should be perfect? Name one perfect system. More simple systems like traffic lights, headlights, tires, brakes,... each of them can fail. Trains can derail, so we should not trust trains?
  - nickthegreek 3y ago
    The “bug” involves a breathing, thinking human being who didn’t opt into being a lab rat.
- dondeng 3y ago
  But if humans do this 10 out of 1000 and automated cars do it 1 out of 1000 times isn’t the automated driving safer than humans then?
- DennisP 3y ago
  The video didn't look unsafe to me. The pedestrian was walking in from the left side of the road and never got close to the car. In my state that's perfectly legal.
  - ahahahahah 3y ago
    > never got close to the car Yes, because the pedestrian slowed down when it saw the Tesla was not giving them right of way (as the Tesla is required to in the state of california). > In my state that's perfectly legal. In most states its illegal to force a vehicle or pedestrian or whatever that has right of way to slow to a near stop to avoid a collision with you that you could have easily stopped and avoided. I don't know of a state where a pedestrian in a crosswalk would not have right of way in this situation. Now, there are many states where a pedestrian in a crosswalk doesn't have like right of way over everything (though, technically, not california), but for the most part this applies to vehicles that could cross the crosswalk without affecting the pedestrian.
    - DennisP 3y ago
      I don't see any particular slowing by the walker, and neither did another HN commenter who replied to you.
- nuancebydefault 3y ago
  I think in this respect it is already safer than human driving, my point being.
  - mikestew 3y ago
    Okay, I see what you're saying. But wouldn't an automated system be consistent in its behavior? IOW, if it does not respect crosswalk laws in one case, should we not expect it to do the same in all, or at least most cases? At least some (and hopefully most) human drivers are staying out of pedestrian-occupied crosswalks.
mcguire 3y ago
You realize "it drives like a human being" and "it will surpass [humans in terms of safety?]" are contradictory statements?
- michaelmior 3y ago
  As written, they are not given that the first is present tense and the second is future tense. There is also some ambiguity surrounding what "like" a human being means in this context, but I could imagine a car driving "like" a human, but safer.
- smolder 3y ago
  It's not exactly contradictory. It can "surpass humans" in the sense of being significantly better than average. If FSD drove like only the best human drivers, free of mistakes, you could say it surpassed us in terms of safety.
- nuancebydefault 3y ago
  I'm confused. English is not my native language but did I imply anywhere "like a human being"? I was reasonig about the distance between machine and humans in their driving capabilities. It is clear that there us a gap in favor of humans and the gap is narrowing. Moreso, in the future there will be a surpassing. I don't get the contradiction you see.

mikestew 3y ago

If you would put a camera in a 1000 cars fully driven by humans and film each for a day, how many of such recordings could be found? Already with the whataboutism? Automated driving is supposed to promise safer driving than humans, not bug-for-bug compatibility.

wilg 3y ago
This is an asinine argument. It’s not necessarily safer right out of the gate! Maybe they just need to fix the bug.
- nuancebydefault 3y ago
  Every bug needs solving. But also: every bug will _never_ be solved. Why would you think any system or even component should be perfect? Name one perfect system. More simple systems like traffic lights, headlights, tires, brakes,... each of them can fail. Trains can derail, so we should not trust trains?
- nickthegreek 3y ago
  The “bug” involves a breathing, thinking human being who didn’t opt into being a lab rat.
dondeng 3y ago
But if humans do this 10 out of 1000 and automated cars do it 1 out of 1000 times isn’t the automated driving safer than humans then?
DennisP 3y ago
The video didn't look unsafe to me. The pedestrian was walking in from the left side of the road and never got close to the car. In my state that's perfectly legal.
- ahahahahah 3y ago
  > never got close to the car Yes, because the pedestrian slowed down when it saw the Tesla was not giving them right of way (as the Tesla is required to in the state of california). > In my state that's perfectly legal. In most states its illegal to force a vehicle or pedestrian or whatever that has right of way to slow to a near stop to avoid a collision with you that you could have easily stopped and avoided. I don't know of a state where a pedestrian in a crosswalk would not have right of way in this situation. Now, there are many states where a pedestrian in a crosswalk doesn't have like right of way over everything (though, technically, not california), but for the most part this applies to vehicles that could cross the crosswalk without affecting the pedestrian.
  - DennisP 3y ago
    I don't see any particular slowing by the walker, and neither did another HN commenter who replied to you.
nuancebydefault 3y ago
I think in this respect it is already safer than human driving, my point being.
- mikestew 3y ago
  Okay, I see what you're saying. But wouldn't an automated system be consistent in its behavior? IOW, if it does not respect crosswalk laws in one case, should we not expect it to do the same in all, or at least most cases? At least some (and hopefully most) human drivers are staying out of pedestrian-occupied crosswalks.

mcguire 3y ago

You realize "it drives like a human being" and "it will surpass [humans in terms of safety?]" are contradictory statements?

michaelmior 3y ago
As written, they are not given that the first is present tense and the second is future tense. There is also some ambiguity surrounding what "like" a human being means in this context, but I could imagine a car driving "like" a human, but safer.
smolder 3y ago
It's not exactly contradictory. It can "surpass humans" in the sense of being significantly better than average. If FSD drove like only the best human drivers, free of mistakes, you could say it surpassed us in terms of safety.
nuancebydefault 3y ago
I'm confused. English is not my native language but did I imply anywhere "like a human being"? I was reasonig about the distance between machine and humans in their driving capabilities. It is clear that there us a gap in favor of humans and the gap is narrowing. Moreso, in the future there will be a surpassing. I don't get the contradiction you see.