6 ms·

I totally agree with what you say. Certainly “Full Self Driving” should be illegal marketing for level 2 autonomy. That said, cars are dumb toys to give people

I totally agree with what you say. Certainly “Full Self Driving” should be illegal marketing for level 2 autonomy. That said, cars are dumb toys to give people. Certainly access to cars is dangerous for people that are going to use them while drunk. “Sense of security” or not, why were these guys in control of a vehicle? While autonomous vehicles are not ready, this event just cements the need for them in my mind. I expect that they have already saved more lives than they have cost. Some continue to insist that replacing human drivers is a high bar. In edge cases and for the best drivers, it is. Collectively though, evidence suggests that the bar is very low and that we have already surpassed it. At this point, it is more of a “fairness” or “control” issue who gets hurt by autonomy than it is aggregate safety by the numbers. In this case, thankfully, it sounds like it was fair.

ajross 3y ago
> I totally agree with what you say. Certainly “Full Self Driving” should be illegal marketing for level 2 autonomy. The driver was literally a Tesla Inc. employee. Do you really think that they were fooled by marketing into believing the system was more capable than it was? No, they were just drunk and made a terrible decision. I mean, I'm tempted to just agree. Let's call it something else. Will that stop these ridiculous arguments? I really doubt it.
- ra7 3y ago
  Did you read the article? > Von Ohain used Full Self-Driving nearly every time he got behind the wheel, Bass said, placing him among legions of Tesla boosters heeding Musk’s call to generate data and build the technology’s mastery. While Bass refused to use the feature herself — she said its unpredictability stressed her out — her husband was so confident in all it promised that he even used it with their baby in the car. > “It was jerky, but we were like, that comes with the territory of” new technology, Bass said. “We knew the technology had to learn, and we were willing to be part of that.” Seems like he was indeed fooled by marketing.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - judge2020 3y ago
    Wouldn't "bought into the marketing" only apply to something like "I got in this Turo'd Tesla, turned on Autopilot, then 10 seconds later it crashed into another car on an unprotected left-hand turn"? You literally can't believe in the marketing after having used it for as long as it sounds like he has; the car does too much driver monitoring to leave you with the impression it works flawlessly and without human intervention. The entire Twitter/X community that talks about FSD reiterates that the current iterations feel like a 15-year-old driving.
    - ra7 3y ago
      Elon Musk: "FSD is already safer than humans, see our (misleading) safety report. If you use it and give us data, it will be a robotaxi by end of the year." This dude: "Sounds good, let me put my baby in it. It's jerky, but I'm contributing for a bigger cause." This counts as being misled by marketing to me.
      - itishappy 3y ago
        Elon: "FSD is safer than humans." This dude: "Neat, I'm going to use it!" FSD, upon activation: "Full Self-Driving (Beta). Full Self-Driving is in early limited access Beta and must be used with additional caution. It may do the wrong thing at the worst time. Do not become complacent. ... Use FSD in limited Beta only if you will pay constant attention to the road, and be prepared to act immediately, specially around blind corners, crossing intersection, and in narrow driving situations. Do you want to enable FSD while it is in limited Beta?" This dude: "Elon said it's safe, I'm going to drink and drive!"
        ra7 3y ago
        > Elon: "FSD is safer than humans." Well, this is false. So it's misleading right off the bat.
- SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
  I'm confused by the question. If anything I think it's more likely that a Tesla employee could be tricked. Other companies like Waymo have cars that literally drive themselves, and Tesla routinely has demos which purport to show the same functionality. It doesn't sound ridiculous at all that an employee might see lots of videos like [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez0A9t9BSVg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez0A9t9BSVg], where a Tesla car drives itself, and conclude that their Tesla car with "Self Driving" can drive itself.
simion314 3y ago
>evidence suggests that the bar is very low There is no real evidence (not biased or cherry picked) that replacing all drivers with Tesla's would actually be better/ I am aware of Tesla's numbers but those are invalid statistics , not comparing apples to apples. We would need something like how many miles does a car drive before a driver takes over, not comparing number of accidents since those are comparing human vs computer+human
- cjbprime 3y ago
  Why is it invalid to compare which of human vs. computer+human will save more lives?
  - kube-system 3y ago
    It is inherently cherry picked data, because the computer can disengage at any moment, but the human cannot. For example: all of the worst driving conditions are inherently in the 'human drivers' bucket because the computer won't engage in those situations.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    I don't drink alcohol at all. It is possible that because of that I'm better than computer+human while the humans overall are worse. I sometimes must drive on icy roads where the computer won't engage and all - these are more dangerous conditions and by refusing to do anything they ensure the computer does work. It is possible for humans to be better than computers+humans in all situations that computers work, but because of those situations where the computers don't work end up overall worse. The above are just two issues that I can think of, and I'm not even a researcher who would know all of those special cases. Which is why everyone wants transparent data: someone independent needs enough information to account for factors like the above and allow us to have a real debate.
  - simion314 3y ago
    >Why is it invalid to compare which of human vs. computer+human will save more lives? I think it is not relevant for real self driving. I can "invent" also a computer that will not let drunk people start the car, it will have good statistics, the issue I am not a bilionaire to get people install my invention in their cars. if we the society want to reduce the deaths we could have already done a lot more for preventing drunk drivers, bad drivers, speeding etc.

ajross 3y ago

> I totally agree with what you say. Certainly “Full Self Driving” should be illegal marketing for level 2 autonomy. The driver was literally a Tesla Inc. employee. Do you really think that they were fooled by marketing into believing the system was more capable than it was? No, they were just drunk and made a terrible decision. I mean, I'm tempted to just agree. Let's call it something else. Will that stop these ridiculous arguments? I really doubt it.

ra7 3y ago
Did you read the article? > Von Ohain used Full Self-Driving nearly every time he got behind the wheel, Bass said, placing him among legions of Tesla boosters heeding Musk’s call to generate data and build the technology’s mastery. While Bass refused to use the feature herself — she said its unpredictability stressed her out — her husband was so confident in all it promised that he even used it with their baby in the car. > “It was jerky, but we were like, that comes with the territory of” new technology, Bass said. “We knew the technology had to learn, and we were willing to be part of that.” Seems like he was indeed fooled by marketing.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- judge2020 3y ago
  Wouldn't "bought into the marketing" only apply to something like "I got in this Turo'd Tesla, turned on Autopilot, then 10 seconds later it crashed into another car on an unprotected left-hand turn"? You literally can't believe in the marketing after having used it for as long as it sounds like he has; the car does too much driver monitoring to leave you with the impression it works flawlessly and without human intervention. The entire Twitter/X community that talks about FSD reiterates that the current iterations feel like a 15-year-old driving.
  - ra7 3y ago
    Elon Musk: "FSD is already safer than humans, see our (misleading) safety report. If you use it and give us data, it will be a robotaxi by end of the year." This dude: "Sounds good, let me put my baby in it. It's jerky, but I'm contributing for a bigger cause." This counts as being misled by marketing to me.
    - itishappy 3y ago
      Elon: "FSD is safer than humans." This dude: "Neat, I'm going to use it!" FSD, upon activation: "Full Self-Driving (Beta). Full Self-Driving is in early limited access Beta and must be used with additional caution. It may do the wrong thing at the worst time. Do not become complacent. ... Use FSD in limited Beta only if you will pay constant attention to the road, and be prepared to act immediately, specially around blind corners, crossing intersection, and in narrow driving situations. Do you want to enable FSD while it is in limited Beta?" This dude: "Elon said it's safe, I'm going to drink and drive!"
      - ra7 3y ago
        > Elon: "FSD is safer than humans." Well, this is false. So it's misleading right off the bat.
SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
I'm confused by the question. If anything I think it's more likely that a Tesla employee could be tricked. Other companies like Waymo have cars that literally drive themselves, and Tesla routinely has demos which purport to show the same functionality. It doesn't sound ridiculous at all that an employee might see lots of videos like [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez0A9t9BSVg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez0A9t9BSVg], where a Tesla car drives itself, and conclude that their Tesla car with "Self Driving" can drive itself.

simion314 3y ago

>evidence suggests that the bar is very low There is no real evidence (not biased or cherry picked) that replacing all drivers with Tesla's would actually be better/ I am aware of Tesla's numbers but those are invalid statistics , not comparing apples to apples. We would need something like how many miles does a car drive before a driver takes over, not comparing number of accidents since those are comparing human vs computer+human

cjbprime 3y ago
Why is it invalid to compare which of human vs. computer+human will save more lives?
- kube-system 3y ago
  It is inherently cherry picked data, because the computer can disengage at any moment, but the human cannot. For example: all of the worst driving conditions are inherently in the 'human drivers' bucket because the computer won't engage in those situations.
- bluGill 3y ago
  I don't drink alcohol at all. It is possible that because of that I'm better than computer+human while the humans overall are worse. I sometimes must drive on icy roads where the computer won't engage and all - these are more dangerous conditions and by refusing to do anything they ensure the computer does work. It is possible for humans to be better than computers+humans in all situations that computers work, but because of those situations where the computers don't work end up overall worse. The above are just two issues that I can think of, and I'm not even a researcher who would know all of those special cases. Which is why everyone wants transparent data: someone independent needs enough information to account for factors like the above and allow us to have a real debate.
- simion314 3y ago
  >Why is it invalid to compare which of human vs. computer+human will save more lives? I think it is not relevant for real self driving. I can "invent" also a computer that will not let drunk people start the car, it will have good statistics, the issue I am not a bilionaire to get people install my invention in their cars. if we the society want to reduce the deaths we could have already done a lot more for preventing drunk drivers, bad drivers, speeding etc.