5 ms·

This is why I'm not convinced by arguments that FSD is no worse than normal humans: the ethics of the underlying company. To me it's like someone who regularly

This is why I'm not convinced by arguments that FSD is no worse than normal humans: the ethics of the underlying company. To me it's like someone who regularly drives drunk pointing to the fact they've never had an accident.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> I'm not convinced by arguments that FSD is no worse than normal humans Has this claim been made by an independent third party? (About Tesla's FSD, specifically.)
- mlyle 3y ago
  No. In principle, even half-baked driver assistance can make things safer, but it all depends upon the way the driver is integrated into that system. Humans are terrible at vigilance tasks, and if you ask them to passively monitor a system that gets things right 98% of the time, you're going to have a bad time. Even worse if you strongly imply that the system is good enough (e.g. "the person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons")
  - freerobby 3y ago
    > Humans are terrible at vigilance tasks, and if you ask them to passively monitor a system that gets things right 98% of the time, you're going to have a bad time. I understand this as a hypothesis but it hasn't been borne out by any of the Autopilot usage data. I suspect the reason is that humans suffer greatly from fatigue and ADAS systems reduce fatigue.
    - itsoktocry 3y ago
      >I suspect the reason is that humans suffer greatly from fatigue and ADAS systems reduce fatigue. I understand this hypothesis, but has it borne out by any independent analysis of Autopilot usage data? Tesla is selling expensive software and claiming it's safer. It should be safer, I want it to be safer. But is it?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - freerobby 3y ago
        With specific respect to ADAS systems reducing fatigue: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369847814000904 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13698... > We investigated the effects of ACC and HAD on drivers’ workload and situation awareness through a meta-analysis and narrative review of simulator and on-road studies. Based on a total of 32 studies, the unweighted mean self-reported workload was 43.5% for manual driving, 38.6% for ACC driving, and 22.7% for HAD (0% = minimum, 100 = maximum on the NASA Task Load Index or Rating Scale Mental Effort). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920921001851#b0165 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136192092... > Interviewees reported being less mentally and physically tired—though most focused on the former—both while in transit and upon arrival at their destination. Twelve (12) interviewees mentioned this. The reduction in tiredness seems to be because, from the interviewees perspective, partial automation takes over a substantial portion of the driving task.
    - sumeno 3y ago
      > I understand this as a hypothesis but it hasn't been borne out by any of the Autopilot usage data. Which independent Autopilot usage data are you referencing?
      - freerobby 3y ago
        I don't have any independent data, just what Tesla reports: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport I've read the many critiques of Tesla's analysis, and I tend to agree the benefits are overstated, but I haven't seen any reasonable empirical case that Autopilot hurts safety on net.
        mrguyorama 3y ago
        >but I haven't seen any reasonable empirical case that Autopilot hurts safety on net. because tesla does not release their data
        rvnx 3y ago
        You can compare Tesla death rates per vehicule sold vs similar cars however: https://www.flyingpenguin.com/?p=35819 https://www.flyingpenguin.com/?p=35819
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      Humans being bad at vigilance tasks isn't a hypothesis, it has been thoroughly studied for aviation safety reasons and is one of the hundreds of social and behavioral changes that aviation made to better interact with the human machine. Hundreds of people have died explicitly because well trained people with thousands of hours of experience got distracted from their vigilance task. This isn't a hypothetical. There are bodies in the florida everglades.
      - freerobby 3y ago
        That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying it was a reasonable hypothesis that "you're going to have a bad time" with a system like Autopilot, because of the vigilance concern you're referencing. But there is clearly more at play than vigilance, because it's not shaking out that way -- Autopilot (and similar lanekeeping + adaptive cruise systems from other manufacturers) aren't killing people left and right. So, I was sharing my own hypothesis for why that may be: that the benefits of reduced fatigue are outweighing the drawbacks of distraction and complacency.
        jwestbury 3y ago
        As mentioned by another poster, there is actual research[0] showing that, once controlling for additional factors, Autopilot actually increases crashes by 11%. This is utilising Tesla-provided data, too, which could mean the data itself is already biased. 0. https://engrxiv.org/preprint/view/1973 https://engrxiv.org/preprint/view/1973
- burkaman 3y ago
  I found this study, which sort of makes this claim with a lot of qualifications: https://engrxiv.org/preprint/view/1973 https://engrxiv.org/preprint/view/1973. It's comparing Autopilot to "normal" Tesla driving, which still includes auto-braking, blind spot warnings, etc. It is still based on Tesla's own data and has to make a ton of assumptions, but it seems like they did the best they could. > By correcting for roadway usage differences between the Autopilot and active safety only data, much of the crash reduction seen by vehicles using Autopilot appears to be explained by lower crash rates experienced on freeways. While the raw crash rate shows an average 43% reduction in crash rate for Autopilot compared to active safety only, this improvement is only 10% after controlling for different rates of freeway driving. Correcting for age demographics likewise produced an 11% increase in the estimated crash rate. Several other factors may explain difference in safety rates of new vehicle technologies based on who is using them, where they are being used, and when they are being used. Some safety features cannot be used in rain or snow, for example, which may bias the data towards clear weather and lower crash rates generally. In another example, drivers often disengage Autopilot to change lanes or prepare to exit a freeway (Morando et al., 2020), both areas of increased crash risk. While Tesla includes crashes where Autopilot was deactivated less than five seconds prior to impact, there remains a potential for Autopilot use to be biased towards safer, within-lane driving. With more data regarding not only the crashes but also the use of vehicle technologies can allow for more accurate and thorough assessments of vehicle safety benefits.
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    Nice! I've always been skeptical of coarse metrics like "X million miles per accident" because they don't differentiate between different driving environments like freeways and cities. I'm glad there's research breaking the data down in a more fine-grained way.
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
Or that they've had several accidents, but just didn't happen to be "officially" drunk when the accidents occurred, even though there's evidence they were drinking shortly before...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
sockaddr 3y ago
As a current tesla owner I couldn't have said it better. There have been multiple instances over the years where my car would make completely inappropriate and dangerous decisions (like slamming on the brakes on the interstate or in a parking lot for no reason) and when I ask Tesla for more information about the incident they'll flat our lie and say it never happened or that the car is or is not capable of what I'm claiming. It's lies and gaslighting all the way down even to specific repairs they do (claiming they fix something when they actually do no such thing). At this point due to Tesla corporate's untrustworthy behavior I believe Teslas are a risk to drivers and pedestrians alike and will take every opportunity to make this known as a warning to prospective buyers. Tesla, never again.
- rvnx 3y ago
  It made me think about this video where a person tests whether the car detects a small child that is very fast crossing the road. The answer from Tesla: "It's all lies! It is a competitor!", without addressing the main concern.
- jonny_eh 3y ago
  > There have been multiple instances over the years where my car would make completely inappropriate and dangerous decisions Dumb question, but is this with the FSD on or off?
  - sockaddr 3y ago
    Not a dumb question. My car slightly predates FSD. The behavioral issues were a result of: - Enhanced Autopilot $5000 option that I can't get a refund for - Emergency auto-braking (has to be manually disabled for each trip) I commented because the lack of ethics of this company still apply regardless of the specific tech.
    - jonny_eh 3y ago
      > Emergency auto-braking (has to be manually disabled for each trip) Wow, what a nightmare!

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> I'm not convinced by arguments that FSD is no worse than normal humans Has this claim been made by an independent third party? (About Tesla's FSD, specifically.)

mlyle 3y ago
No. In principle, even half-baked driver assistance can make things safer, but it all depends upon the way the driver is integrated into that system. Humans are terrible at vigilance tasks, and if you ask them to passively monitor a system that gets things right 98% of the time, you're going to have a bad time. Even worse if you strongly imply that the system is good enough (e.g. "the person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons")
- freerobby 3y ago
  > Humans are terrible at vigilance tasks, and if you ask them to passively monitor a system that gets things right 98% of the time, you're going to have a bad time. I understand this as a hypothesis but it hasn't been borne out by any of the Autopilot usage data. I suspect the reason is that humans suffer greatly from fatigue and ADAS systems reduce fatigue.
  - itsoktocry 3y ago
    >I suspect the reason is that humans suffer greatly from fatigue and ADAS systems reduce fatigue. I understand this hypothesis, but has it borne out by any independent analysis of Autopilot usage data? Tesla is selling expensive software and claiming it's safer. It should be safer, I want it to be safer. But is it?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - freerobby 3y ago
      With specific respect to ADAS systems reducing fatigue: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369847814000904 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13698... > We investigated the effects of ACC and HAD on drivers’ workload and situation awareness through a meta-analysis and narrative review of simulator and on-road studies. Based on a total of 32 studies, the unweighted mean self-reported workload was 43.5% for manual driving, 38.6% for ACC driving, and 22.7% for HAD (0% = minimum, 100 = maximum on the NASA Task Load Index or Rating Scale Mental Effort). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920921001851#b0165 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136192092... > Interviewees reported being less mentally and physically tired—though most focused on the former—both while in transit and upon arrival at their destination. Twelve (12) interviewees mentioned this. The reduction in tiredness seems to be because, from the interviewees perspective, partial automation takes over a substantial portion of the driving task.
  - sumeno 3y ago
    > I understand this as a hypothesis but it hasn't been borne out by any of the Autopilot usage data. Which independent Autopilot usage data are you referencing?
    - freerobby 3y ago
      I don't have any independent data, just what Tesla reports: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport I've read the many critiques of Tesla's analysis, and I tend to agree the benefits are overstated, but I haven't seen any reasonable empirical case that Autopilot hurts safety on net.
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        >but I haven't seen any reasonable empirical case that Autopilot hurts safety on net. because tesla does not release their data
        rvnx 3y ago
        You can compare Tesla death rates per vehicule sold vs similar cars however: https://www.flyingpenguin.com/?p=35819 https://www.flyingpenguin.com/?p=35819
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Humans being bad at vigilance tasks isn't a hypothesis, it has been thoroughly studied for aviation safety reasons and is one of the hundreds of social and behavioral changes that aviation made to better interact with the human machine. Hundreds of people have died explicitly because well trained people with thousands of hours of experience got distracted from their vigilance task. This isn't a hypothetical. There are bodies in the florida everglades.
    - freerobby 3y ago
      That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying it was a reasonable hypothesis that "you're going to have a bad time" with a system like Autopilot, because of the vigilance concern you're referencing. But there is clearly more at play than vigilance, because it's not shaking out that way -- Autopilot (and similar lanekeeping + adaptive cruise systems from other manufacturers) aren't killing people left and right. So, I was sharing my own hypothesis for why that may be: that the benefits of reduced fatigue are outweighing the drawbacks of distraction and complacency.
      - jwestbury 3y ago
        As mentioned by another poster, there is actual research[0] showing that, once controlling for additional factors, Autopilot actually increases crashes by 11%. This is utilising Tesla-provided data, too, which could mean the data itself is already biased. 0. https://engrxiv.org/preprint/view/1973 https://engrxiv.org/preprint/view/1973
burkaman 3y ago
I found this study, which sort of makes this claim with a lot of qualifications: https://engrxiv.org/preprint/view/1973 https://engrxiv.org/preprint/view/1973. It's comparing Autopilot to "normal" Tesla driving, which still includes auto-braking, blind spot warnings, etc. It is still based on Tesla's own data and has to make a ton of assumptions, but it seems like they did the best they could. > By correcting for roadway usage differences between the Autopilot and active safety only data, much of the crash reduction seen by vehicles using Autopilot appears to be explained by lower crash rates experienced on freeways. While the raw crash rate shows an average 43% reduction in crash rate for Autopilot compared to active safety only, this improvement is only 10% after controlling for different rates of freeway driving. Correcting for age demographics likewise produced an 11% increase in the estimated crash rate. Several other factors may explain difference in safety rates of new vehicle technologies based on who is using them, where they are being used, and when they are being used. Some safety features cannot be used in rain or snow, for example, which may bias the data towards clear weather and lower crash rates generally. In another example, drivers often disengage Autopilot to change lanes or prepare to exit a freeway (Morando et al., 2020), both areas of increased crash risk. While Tesla includes crashes where Autopilot was deactivated less than five seconds prior to impact, there remains a potential for Autopilot use to be biased towards safer, within-lane driving. With more data regarding not only the crashes but also the use of vehicle technologies can allow for more accurate and thorough assessments of vehicle safety benefits.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  Nice! I've always been skeptical of coarse metrics like "X million miles per accident" because they don't differentiate between different driving environments like freeways and cities. I'm glad there's research breaking the data down in a more fine-grained way.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

Or that they've had several accidents, but just didn't happen to be "officially" drunk when the accidents occurred, even though there's evidence they were drinking shortly before...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

sockaddr 3y ago

As a current tesla owner I couldn't have said it better. There have been multiple instances over the years where my car would make completely inappropriate and dangerous decisions (like slamming on the brakes on the interstate or in a parking lot for no reason) and when I ask Tesla for more information about the incident they'll flat our lie and say it never happened or that the car is or is not capable of what I'm claiming. It's lies and gaslighting all the way down even to specific repairs they do (claiming they fix something when they actually do no such thing). At this point due to Tesla corporate's untrustworthy behavior I believe Teslas are a risk to drivers and pedestrians alike and will take every opportunity to make this known as a warning to prospective buyers. Tesla, never again.

rvnx 3y ago
It made me think about this video where a person tests whether the car detects a small child that is very fast crossing the road. The answer from Tesla: "It's all lies! It is a competitor!", without addressing the main concern.
jonny_eh 3y ago
> There have been multiple instances over the years where my car would make completely inappropriate and dangerous decisions Dumb question, but is this with the FSD on or off?
- sockaddr 3y ago
  Not a dumb question. My car slightly predates FSD. The behavioral issues were a result of: - Enhanced Autopilot $5000 option that I can't get a refund for - Emergency auto-braking (has to be manually disabled for each trip) I commented because the lack of ethics of this company still apply regardless of the specific tech.
  - jonny_eh 3y ago
    > Emergency auto-braking (has to be manually disabled for each trip) Wow, what a nightmare!