4 ms·

Precisely what I expected from you. You’re exactly Tesla’s target audience. The irony and projection in your comment is comical. “It’s safer than humans.” “Pr

by ra7 3y ago

Precisely what I expected from you. You’re exactly Tesla’s target audience. The irony and projection in your comment is comical. “It’s safer than humans.” “Proof?” “Just look around, bro. Trust me, it’s good enough. No data needed.” Thankfully, some of us don’t lack critical thinking.

ajross 3y ago
This seems out of hand. My perception is exactly the opposite: you're all over these threads claiming in decidedly certain terms that this system is unsafe. And all I'm saying is that it's clearly not, since at this scale we'd have if nothing else extensive anecdata showing AP/FSD accidents that simply don't seem to exist in the quantity needed to explain your certainty. So, yeah. Occam tells me that these cars are safe. Which matches my 2.7 years of experience watching one of these things drive me around. So I'm comfortable with that, no matter how angry that makes you. I'm absolutely willing to change my mind with evidence, but not because you yelled at me on the internet.
- ra7 3y ago
  I said they are not safer than humans like Tesla likes to claim. The methodology is extremely dubious and it’s very easy to debunk it for anyone with a basic understanding of statistics. You claim it’s true because have anecdotes and personal experiences. You also say there are no crashes. But there are crashes. We just don’t know if FSD was engaged at the time because, again, Tesla doesn’t reveal it. Go through the NHTSA public database, there are dozens and dozens of Tesla ADAS crashes. Those are just the reported ones. You are also conspicuously silent in this whole thread when data transparency comes up. Not once have you admitted Tesla should be more forthcoming about their crashes, and that in itself is very revealing. You want to argue data or methodology? I’m here. But you’re being intellectually dishonest and resorting to repeating the same things over and over again. That ain’t gonna convince me. And cut the shit about being angry or yelling at you. No one’s doing that. You’re clearly projecting.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    If you don't like Tesla's methodology, what data do you need to determine how much more unsafe Teslas are compared to humans? You sound like you have the data: > Go through the NHTSA public database, there are dozens and dozens of Tesla ADAS crashes. Those are just the reported ones. Why hasn't anyone else, or you, directly published conflicting data to show that it's less safe? "debunking" some statistics might be correct but it's not convincing, and definitely won't result in any action you might want to see from regulatory bodies.
    - ra7 3y ago
      > what data do you need to determine how much more unsafe Teslas are compared to humans? Tesla should start by first reporting disengagement data to CA DMV like every other self driving company. It shows FSD's rate of progress. Then they should take all their crashes, normalize for different factors I mentioned earlier and then make a comparison. See how Waymo does it: https://waymo.com/blog/2023/12/waymo-significantly-outperforms-comparable-human-benchmarks-over-7-million/ https://waymo.com/blog/2023/12/waymo-significantly-outperfor.... They have multiple white papers on their methodology. Go through it, if you're interested to see what apples-to-apples comparison looks like. > Why hasn't anyone else, or you, directly published conflicting data to show that it's less safe? Because Tesla redacts every single reported crash to point that it's useless. Is FSD enabled or Autopilot? Not reported. FSD version? Redacted. Injury? Unknown. Description? Redacted. Good luck trying to glean any information from it. This is by design to prevent independent analysis of their performance. Be transparent like everyone else. You know it's fishy when they're actively trying to hide things.
    - ra7 3y ago
      By the way, if you want to see missing data in action, I did some legwork: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39375581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39375581

by ra7 3y ago

ajross 3y ago

This seems out of hand. My perception is exactly the opposite: you're all over these threads claiming in decidedly certain terms that this system is unsafe. And all I'm saying is that it's clearly not, since at this scale we'd have if nothing else extensive anecdata showing AP/FSD accidents that simply don't seem to exist in the quantity needed to explain your certainty. So, yeah. Occam tells me that these cars are safe. Which matches my 2.7 years of experience watching one of these things drive me around. So I'm comfortable with that, no matter how angry that makes you. I'm absolutely willing to change my mind with evidence, but not because you yelled at me on the internet.

ra7 3y ago
I said they are not safer than humans like Tesla likes to claim. The methodology is extremely dubious and it’s very easy to debunk it for anyone with a basic understanding of statistics. You claim it’s true because have anecdotes and personal experiences. You also say there are no crashes. But there are crashes. We just don’t know if FSD was engaged at the time because, again, Tesla doesn’t reveal it. Go through the NHTSA public database, there are dozens and dozens of Tesla ADAS crashes. Those are just the reported ones. You are also conspicuously silent in this whole thread when data transparency comes up. Not once have you admitted Tesla should be more forthcoming about their crashes, and that in itself is very revealing. You want to argue data or methodology? I’m here. But you’re being intellectually dishonest and resorting to repeating the same things over and over again. That ain’t gonna convince me. And cut the shit about being angry or yelling at you. No one’s doing that. You’re clearly projecting.
- judge2020 3y ago
  If you don't like Tesla's methodology, what data do you need to determine how much more unsafe Teslas are compared to humans? You sound like you have the data: > Go through the NHTSA public database, there are dozens and dozens of Tesla ADAS crashes. Those are just the reported ones. Why hasn't anyone else, or you, directly published conflicting data to show that it's less safe? "debunking" some statistics might be correct but it's not convincing, and definitely won't result in any action you might want to see from regulatory bodies.
  - ra7 3y ago
    > what data do you need to determine how much more unsafe Teslas are compared to humans? Tesla should start by first reporting disengagement data to CA DMV like every other self driving company. It shows FSD's rate of progress. Then they should take all their crashes, normalize for different factors I mentioned earlier and then make a comparison. See how Waymo does it: https://waymo.com/blog/2023/12/waymo-significantly-outperforms-comparable-human-benchmarks-over-7-million/ https://waymo.com/blog/2023/12/waymo-significantly-outperfor.... They have multiple white papers on their methodology. Go through it, if you're interested to see what apples-to-apples comparison looks like. > Why hasn't anyone else, or you, directly published conflicting data to show that it's less safe? Because Tesla redacts every single reported crash to point that it's useless. Is FSD enabled or Autopilot? Not reported. FSD version? Redacted. Injury? Unknown. Description? Redacted. Good luck trying to glean any information from it. This is by design to prevent independent analysis of their performance. Be transparent like everyone else. You know it's fishy when they're actively trying to hide things.
  - ra7 3y ago
    By the way, if you want to see missing data in action, I did some legwork: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39375581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39375581