4 ms·

Strong allegations, what is the death rate per million miles of FSD vs baseline? Is that a publicly known figure?

by ericd 3y ago

Veserv 3y ago
As FSD is a safety-critical product, the burden of proof is on Tesla to prove in a verifiable way to third partys that it is safe. Absent that, it is assumed to be unsafe. So, no, it is the weakest allegation possible and the default assumption. As to the baseline rate, the baseline rate for police reported accidents in the US is 1 per ~500k miles and fatalitys is 1 per ~80M miles [1]. That is approximately 1 per 30 years of driving and 1 per 5,000 years of driving, respectively using the reported average of ~15,000 miles per year per driver. As to the availability of FSD data, you can see my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36181877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36181877 [1] https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/National%20Statistics.pdf https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/National%20Statistics.pdf
- fallingknife 3y ago
  By your standards you can never deploy any FSD system anywhere, because such a system cannot be proven safe without deploying it.
  - acdha 3y ago
    You could do extensive closed-course testing with realistic conditions and then pay to have human drivers watching & ready to take over at any time. The problem is that this costs money and takes time, and Tesla was hoping not to do either.
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      Closed course testing to compare with humans would require about 800,000,000 miles of testing (10x length of average travel between fatalities). And that would just be for one version, every update would require that, and updates are about 100x internal version changes per year depending on how you count additional ML annealing. That's about 80B test miles per year at about a capital cost of $0.50 per mile. For a company that, say, spends ~10% on R&D, it would require the company be about a trillion dollars, which only Apple, etc. have reached.
  - doublespanner 3y ago
    Every other system has rigorous testing with trained safety drivers, planning interventions and working in short enough shifts to remain attentive. Tesla does some of this, but then releases fast to the public... So far it has had some concrete consequences when they pushed this testing responsibility onto unaware people.
- ericd 3y ago
  I still think that saying "Tesla chose to kill people by shipping a low quality system." is a strong allegation. I don't think it's reasonable to speak with that kind of certainty about an unknown. If your other comment is correct, that's a shame that they haven't been required to make that data public.
  - interpenetrate 3y ago
    A rupture: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EksIy3aW0AEIsK-?format=jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EksIy3aW0AEIsK-?format=jpg
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  By that standard, every single existing transportation option is unsafe. We are back to hunting and gathering while living in trees, but let me tell you, even tree climbing can be dangerous.
  - AlotOfReading 3y ago
    They're talking about safety certification... And yeah, other transport components are safety certified. Autonomous software certification is a new enough area that the process is still being developed, but the EU has already instituted rules that specifically call out Tesla's actions as bad examples.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      That wasn't the standard presented in parent comment: > As FSD is a safety-critical product, the burden of proof is on Tesla to prove in a verifiable way to third partys that it is safe. Absent that, it is assumed to be unsafe. So, no, it is the weakest allegation possible and the default assumption. And what you are talking about in this comment is quite different. Please don't move the goal post (or actually, sure, safety certification makes much more sense than verifiable safety).
      - AlotOfReading 3y ago
        I'd call that quote a perfectly adequate summary of certification. Can you rephrase what point you're making to the GP more clearly? It's not obvious to me how certification wouldn't be an answer here?
        seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        It is in the quote. Certified safe (this car isn't completely safe since no car is, but it meets our metrics so we certify it) is different from third-party verifiable safe (we have a proof of safety!).
mhh__ 3y ago
Note that any baseline should be on the same type of road e.g. FSD is probably already pretty safe on most highways whereas it's probably a coffin with wheels on a British country lane.

Strong allegations, what is the death rate per million miles of FSD vs baseline? Is that a publicly known figure?

by ericd 3y ago

Strong allegations, what is the death rate per million miles of FSD vs baseline? Is that a publicly known figure?

As FSD is a safety-critical product, the burden of proof is on Tesla to prove in a verifiable way to third partys that it is safe. Absent that, it is assumed to be unsafe. So, no, it is the weakest allegation possible and the default assumption. As to the baseline rate, the baseline rate for police reported accidents in the US is 1 per ~500k miles and fatalitys is 1 per ~80M miles [1]. That is approximately 1 per 30 years of driving and 1 per 5,000 years of driving, respectively using the reported average of ~15,000 miles per year per driver. As to the availability of FSD data, you can see my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36181877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36181877 [1] https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/National%20Statistics.pdf https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/National%20Statistics.pdf

fallingknife 3y ago
By your standards you can never deploy any FSD system anywhere, because such a system cannot be proven safe without deploying it.
- acdha 3y ago
  You could do extensive closed-course testing with realistic conditions and then pay to have human drivers watching & ready to take over at any time. The problem is that this costs money and takes time, and Tesla was hoping not to do either.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    Closed course testing to compare with humans would require about 800,000,000 miles of testing (10x length of average travel between fatalities). And that would just be for one version, every update would require that, and updates are about 100x internal version changes per year depending on how you count additional ML annealing. That's about 80B test miles per year at about a capital cost of $0.50 per mile. For a company that, say, spends ~10% on R&D, it would require the company be about a trillion dollars, which only Apple, etc. have reached.
- doublespanner 3y ago
  Every other system has rigorous testing with trained safety drivers, planning interventions and working in short enough shifts to remain attentive. Tesla does some of this, but then releases fast to the public... So far it has had some concrete consequences when they pushed this testing responsibility onto unaware people.
ericd 3y ago
I still think that saying "Tesla chose to kill people by shipping a low quality system." is a strong allegation. I don't think it's reasonable to speak with that kind of certainty about an unknown. If your other comment is correct, that's a shame that they haven't been required to make that data public.
- interpenetrate 3y ago
  A rupture: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EksIy3aW0AEIsK-?format=jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EksIy3aW0AEIsK-?format=jpg
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
By that standard, every single existing transportation option is unsafe. We are back to hunting and gathering while living in trees, but let me tell you, even tree climbing can be dangerous.
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  They're talking about safety certification... And yeah, other transport components are safety certified. Autonomous software certification is a new enough area that the process is still being developed, but the EU has already instituted rules that specifically call out Tesla's actions as bad examples.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    That wasn't the standard presented in parent comment: > As FSD is a safety-critical product, the burden of proof is on Tesla to prove in a verifiable way to third partys that it is safe. Absent that, it is assumed to be unsafe. So, no, it is the weakest allegation possible and the default assumption. And what you are talking about in this comment is quite different. Please don't move the goal post (or actually, sure, safety certification makes much more sense than verifiable safety).
    - AlotOfReading 3y ago
      I'd call that quote a perfectly adequate summary of certification. Can you rephrase what point you're making to the GP more clearly? It's not obvious to me how certification wouldn't be an answer here?
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        It is in the quote. Certified safe (this car isn't completely safe since no car is, but it meets our metrics so we certify it) is different from third-party verifiable safe (we have a proof of safety!).

mhh__ 3y ago

Note that any baseline should be on the same type of road e.g. FSD is probably already pretty safe on most highways whereas it's probably a coffin with wheels on a British country lane.