4 ms·

> Intervention every 122,000 miles is the average 17 to 18-year old. Your source says a crash every 70,000 miles for 17 year olds, to my understanding. Number

by Ukv 2y ago

> Intervention every 122,000 miles is the average 17 to 18-year old. Your source says a crash every 70,000 miles for 17 year olds, to my understanding. Number of unsafe actions that would warrant a disengagement, but didn't happen to cause a crash, would likely be significantly higher (e.g: the 17y/o driver speeds 100 times, and crashes once).

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Your source says a crash every 70,000 miles for 17 year olds, to my understanding Correct. > Number of unsafe actions that would warrant a disengagement, but didn't happen to cause a crash, would likely be significantly higher Why? When I’m in a Waymo, I’m taking a nap or entirely uninvolved in the driver nearly 100% of the time. I am worse situated than a drunk, high teen because I’m in the back seat and not even pretending or trying to pay attention. And that’s Level 4. If you’re marketing Level 5, every intervention should be treated like an autopilot failure in aviation: more than we do for crashes. If I’m in a car with a driver where I need to regularly grab the wheel to keep them from colliding, they’re an unsafe driver.
- Ukv 2y ago
  > Why? What percentage of speeding, for instance, do you think materialises into a crash? Even the most dangerous unsafe actions like running a red light won't cause a crash most of the time. So if a 17y/o crashes every 70,000 miles, they're doing something unsafe far more frequently than that. > every intervention should be treated like an autopilot failure in aviation: more than we do for crashes I think the benchmark for now should be whether it's safer than a human driver. We could compare human crashes caused to autonomous crashes caused, or unsafe human actions to unsafe autonomous actions, but I believe you're trying to conflate actual human crashes to unsafe autonomous actions.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > you're trying to conflate actual human crashes to unsafe autonomous actions For a Level 5 system, yes, a situation where the car requires intervention is equivalent to a crash or avoided crash. Particularly if it won’t have a steering wheel or pedals.
    - Ukv 2y ago
      A disengagement may be equivalent to a potential crash (or, just a mistake on behalf of the human doing the disengaging), but not to one actual crash. That someone intervenes to prevent a dodgy overtake does not mean that car was definitely (or even likely) going to crash had they not intervened, for instance.

by Ukv 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Your source says a crash every 70,000 miles for 17 year olds, to my understanding Correct. > Number of unsafe actions that would warrant a disengagement, but didn't happen to cause a crash, would likely be significantly higher Why? When I’m in a Waymo, I’m taking a nap or entirely uninvolved in the driver nearly 100% of the time. I am worse situated than a drunk, high teen because I’m in the back seat and not even pretending or trying to pay attention. And that’s Level 4. If you’re marketing Level 5, every intervention should be treated like an autopilot failure in aviation: more than we do for crashes. If I’m in a car with a driver where I need to regularly grab the wheel to keep them from colliding, they’re an unsafe driver.

Ukv 2y ago
> Why? What percentage of speeding, for instance, do you think materialises into a crash? Even the most dangerous unsafe actions like running a red light won't cause a crash most of the time. So if a 17y/o crashes every 70,000 miles, they're doing something unsafe far more frequently than that. > every intervention should be treated like an autopilot failure in aviation: more than we do for crashes I think the benchmark for now should be whether it's safer than a human driver. We could compare human crashes caused to autonomous crashes caused, or unsafe human actions to unsafe autonomous actions, but I believe you're trying to conflate actual human crashes to unsafe autonomous actions.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > you're trying to conflate actual human crashes to unsafe autonomous actions For a Level 5 system, yes, a situation where the car requires intervention is equivalent to a crash or avoided crash. Particularly if it won’t have a steering wheel or pedals.
  - Ukv 2y ago
    A disengagement may be equivalent to a potential crash (or, just a mistake on behalf of the human doing the disengaging), but not to one actual crash. That someone intervenes to prevent a dodgy overtake does not mean that car was definitely (or even likely) going to crash had they not intervened, for instance.