5 ms·

> If it is dangerous in your anecdotes, why don't the reported numbers show more accidents when FSD is on? Even if it is true that the data show that with FSD

> If it is dangerous in your anecdotes, why don't the reported numbers show more accidents when FSD is on? Even if it is true that the data show that with FSD (not Autopilot) enabled, drivers are in fewer crashes, I would be worried about other confounding factors. For instance, I would assume that drivers are more likely to engage FSD in situations of lower complexity (less traffic, little construction or other impediments, overall lesser traffic flow control complexity, etc.) I also believe that at least initially, Tesla only released FSD to drivers with high safety scores relative to their total driver base, another obvious confounding factor. Happy to be proven wrong though if you have a link to a recent study that goes through all of this.

valval 2y ago
[flagged]
- unbrice 2y ago
  > Either the system causes less loss of life than a human driver or it doesn’t. The confounding factors don’t matter. Confounding factors are what allows one to tell appart "the system cause less loss of life" from "the system causes more loss of life yet it is only enabled in situations were fewer lives are lost".
- kelnos 2y ago
  No, that's absolutely not how this works. Confounding factors are things that make your data not tell you what you are actually trying to understand. You can't just hand-wave that away, sorry. Consider: what I expect is actually true based on the data is that Tesla FSD is as safe or safer than the average human driver, but only if the driver is paying attention and is ready to take over in case FSD does something unsafe, even if FSD doesn't warn the driver it needs to disengage. That's not an autonomous driving system. Which is potentially fine, but the value prop of that system is low to me: I have to pay just as much attention as if I were driving manually, with the added problem that my attention is going to start to wander because the car is doing most of the work, and the longer the car successfully does most of the work, the more I'm going to unconsciously believe I can allow my attention to slip. I do like current common ADAS features because they hit a good sweet spot: I still need to actively hold onto the wheel and handle initiating lane changes, turns, stopping and starting at traffic lights and stop signs, etc. I look at the ADAS as a sort of "backup" to my own driving, and not as what's primarily in control of the car. In contrast, Tesla FSD wants to be primarily in control of the car, but it's not trustworthy enough to do that without constant supervision.
  - valval 2y ago
    Like I said, the time for studies is in the future. FSD is a product in development and they know which stats they need to track in order to track progress. You’re arguing for something that: 1. Isn’t under contention and 2. Isn’t rooted in the real world. You’re right FSD isn’t an autonomous driving system. It’s not meant to be, right now.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      > You’re right FSD isn’t an autonomous driving system Oh, weird. Are you not aware it's called Full SELF Driving?
      - valval 2y ago
        Does the brand name matter? The description should tell you all you need to know when making a purchase decision.
        freejazz 2y ago
        Yes, a company's marketing is absolutely part of the representations the company makes about a product they sell in the context of a product liability lawsuit.
        valval 2y ago
        We’re just waiting for that lawsuit to happen then. Are you a betting man? I’d be happy to have a little wager that in 3 years time from now, Tesla hasn’t faced legal problems for their product naming.
        freejazz 2y ago
        Legal problems for their product naming? They don't get sued for their product name, they get sued for being negligent in selling a defective product to which their advertising is just evidence. I'm not going to bet against someone who is making up scenarios that don't even exist. It's a moot issue anyway, Tesla has already been sued many times for their defective products. Here's one example:https://www.reuters.com/legal/tesla-must-face-vehicle-owners-lawsuit-over-self-driving-claims-2024-05-15/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/tesla-must-face-vehicle-owners... > Are you a betting man? A fool and his money are easily separated.

valval 2y ago

[flagged]

unbrice 2y ago
> Either the system causes less loss of life than a human driver or it doesn’t. The confounding factors don’t matter. Confounding factors are what allows one to tell appart "the system cause less loss of life" from "the system causes more loss of life yet it is only enabled in situations were fewer lives are lost".
kelnos 2y ago
No, that's absolutely not how this works. Confounding factors are things that make your data not tell you what you are actually trying to understand. You can't just hand-wave that away, sorry. Consider: what I expect is actually true based on the data is that Tesla FSD is as safe or safer than the average human driver, but only if the driver is paying attention and is ready to take over in case FSD does something unsafe, even if FSD doesn't warn the driver it needs to disengage. That's not an autonomous driving system. Which is potentially fine, but the value prop of that system is low to me: I have to pay just as much attention as if I were driving manually, with the added problem that my attention is going to start to wander because the car is doing most of the work, and the longer the car successfully does most of the work, the more I'm going to unconsciously believe I can allow my attention to slip. I do like current common ADAS features because they hit a good sweet spot: I still need to actively hold onto the wheel and handle initiating lane changes, turns, stopping and starting at traffic lights and stop signs, etc. I look at the ADAS as a sort of "backup" to my own driving, and not as what's primarily in control of the car. In contrast, Tesla FSD wants to be primarily in control of the car, but it's not trustworthy enough to do that without constant supervision.
- valval 2y ago
  Like I said, the time for studies is in the future. FSD is a product in development and they know which stats they need to track in order to track progress. You’re arguing for something that: 1. Isn’t under contention and 2. Isn’t rooted in the real world. You’re right FSD isn’t an autonomous driving system. It’s not meant to be, right now.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    > You’re right FSD isn’t an autonomous driving system Oh, weird. Are you not aware it's called Full SELF Driving?
    - valval 2y ago
      Does the brand name matter? The description should tell you all you need to know when making a purchase decision.
      - freejazz 2y ago
        Yes, a company's marketing is absolutely part of the representations the company makes about a product they sell in the context of a product liability lawsuit.
        valval 2y ago
        We’re just waiting for that lawsuit to happen then. Are you a betting man? I’d be happy to have a little wager that in 3 years time from now, Tesla hasn’t faced legal problems for their product naming.
        freejazz 2y ago
        Legal problems for their product naming? They don't get sued for their product name, they get sued for being negligent in selling a defective product to which their advertising is just evidence. I'm not going to bet against someone who is making up scenarios that don't even exist. It's a moot issue anyway, Tesla has already been sued many times for their defective products. Here's one example:https://www.reuters.com/legal/tesla-must-face-vehicle-owners-lawsuit-over-self-driving-claims-2024-05-15/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/tesla-must-face-vehicle-owners... > Are you a betting man? A fool and his money are easily separated.