3 ms·

Unsafe relative to what? Certainly not to normal human drivers in normal cars. Those are killing people left and right.

dekhn 2y ago
I don't think the intent is to compare it to normal human drivers, although having some level of estimate of accident/injury/death rates (to both the driver, passenger, and people outside the car) with FSD enabled/disabled would be very interesting.
- moduspol 2y ago
  > I don't think the intent is to compare it to normal human drivers I think our intent should be focused on where the fatalities are happening. To keep things comparable, we could maybe do 40,000 studies on distracted driving in normal cars for every one or two caused by Autopilot / FSD. Alas, that's not where our priorities are.
llamaimperative 2y ago
Those are good questions. We should investigate to find out. (It'd be different from this one but it raises a good question. What is FSD safe compared to?)
AlexandrB 2y ago
No they're not. And if you do look at human drivers you're likely to see a Pareto distribution where 20% of drivers cause most of the accidents. This is completely unlike something like FSD where accidents would be more evenly distributed. It's entirely possible that FSD would make 20% of the drivers safer and ~80% less safe even if the overall accident rate was lower.
Veserv 2y ago
What? Humans are excellent drivers. Humans go ~70 years between injury-causing accidents and ~5,000 years between fatal accidents even if we count the drunk drivers. If you started driving when the Pyramids were still new, you would still have half a millennium until you reach the expected value between fatalities. The only people pumping the line that human drivers are bad are the people trying to sell a dream that they can make a self-driving car in a weekend, or "next year", if you just give them a pile of money and ignore all the red flags and warning signs that they are clueless. The problem is shockingly hard and underestimating it is the first step to failure. Reckless development will not get you there safely with known technology.

I don't think the intent is to compare it to normal human drivers, although having some level of estimate of accident/injury/death rates (to both the driver, passenger, and people outside the car) with FSD enabled/disabled would be very interesting.

moduspol 2y ago
> I don't think the intent is to compare it to normal human drivers I think our intent should be focused on where the fatalities are happening. To keep things comparable, we could maybe do 40,000 studies on distracted driving in normal cars for every one or two caused by Autopilot / FSD. Alas, that's not where our priorities are.

llamaimperative 2y ago

Those are good questions. We should investigate to find out. (It'd be different from this one but it raises a good question. What is FSD safe compared to?)

AlexandrB 2y ago

No they're not. And if you do look at human drivers you're likely to see a Pareto distribution where 20% of drivers cause most of the accidents. This is completely unlike something like FSD where accidents would be more evenly distributed. It's entirely possible that FSD would make 20% of the drivers safer and ~80% less safe even if the overall accident rate was lower.

Veserv 2y ago

What? Humans are excellent drivers. Humans go ~70 years between injury-causing accidents and ~5,000 years between fatal accidents even if we count the drunk drivers. If you started driving when the Pyramids were still new, you would still have half a millennium until you reach the expected value between fatalities. The only people pumping the line that human drivers are bad are the people trying to sell a dream that they can make a self-driving car in a weekend, or "next year", if you just give them a pile of money and ignore all the red flags and warning signs that they are clueless. The problem is shockingly hard and underestimating it is the first step to failure. Reckless development will not get you there safely with known technology.