3 ms·

So just a few more years of death and injury until they reach a finished product?

quailfarmer 2y ago
If the answer was yes, presumably there’s a tradeoff where that deal would be reasonable.
londons_explore 2y ago
So far, data points to it having far fewer crashes than a human alone. Teslas data shows that, but 3rd party data seems to imply the same.
- rvnx 2y ago
  It disconnects in case of dangerous situations, so every 33 miles to 77 miles driven (depending on the version), versus 400'000 miles for a human
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Tesla does not release the data required to substantiate such a claim. It simply doesn’t and you’re either lying or being lied to.
  - londons_explore 2y ago
    tesla releases this data: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
    - rainsford 2y ago
      That data is not an apples to apples comparison unless autopilot is used in exactly the same mix of conditions as human driving. Tesla doesn't share that in the report, but I'd bet it's not equivalent. I personally tend to turn on driving automation features (in my non-Tesla car) in easier conditions and drive myself when anything unusual or complicated is going on, and I'd bet most drivers of Teslas and otherwise do the same. This is important because I'd bet similar data on the use of standard, non-adaptive cruise control would similarly show it's much safer than human drivers. But of course that would be because people use cruise control most in long-distance highway driving outside of congested areas, where you're least likely to have an accident.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Per the other comment: no, they don't. This data is not enough to evaluate its safety. This is enough data to mislead people who spend <30 seconds thinking about the question though, so I guess that's something (something == misdirection and dishonesty). You've been lied to.
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      No, it releases enough data to actively mislead you (because there is no way Tesla's data people are unaware of these factors): The report measures accidents in FSD mode. Qualifiers to FSD mode: the conditions, weather, road, location, traffic all have to meet a certain quality threshold before the system will be enabled (or not disable itself). Compare Sunnyvale on a clear spring day to Pittsburgh December nights. There's no qualifier to the "comparison": all drivers, all conditions, all weather, all roads, all location, all traffic. It's not remotely comparable, and Tesla's data people are not that stupid, so it's willfully misleading. This report does not include fatalities. It also doesn't consider any incident where there was not airbag deployment to be an accident. Sounds potentially reasonable until you consider: - first gen airbag systems were primitive: collision exceeds threshold, deploy. Currently, vehicle safety systems consider duration of impact, speeds, G-forces, amount of intrusion, angle of collision, and a multitude of other factors before deciding what, if any, systems to fire (seatbelt tensioners, airbags, etc.) So hit something at 30mph with the right variables? Tesla: "this is not an accident". - Tesla also does not consider "incident was so catastrophic that airbags COULD NOT deploy*" to be an accident, because "airbags didn't deploy". This umbrella could also include egregious, "systems failed to deploy for any reason up to and including poor assembly line quality control", as also not an accident and also "not counted".
Peanuts99 2y ago
If this is what society has to pay to improve Tesla's product, then perhaps they should have to share the software with other car manufacturers too. Otherwise every car brand will have to kill a whole heap of people too until they manage to make a FSD system.
- modeless 2y ago
  Elon has said many times that they are willing to license FSD but nobody else has been interested so far. Clearly that will change if they reach their goals. Also, "years of death and injury" is a bald-faced lie. NHTSA would have shut down FSD a long time ago if it were happening. The statistics Tesla has released to the public are lacking, it's true, but they cannot hide things from the NHTSA. FSD has been on the road for years and a billion miles and if it was overall significantly worse than normal driving (when supervised, of course) the NHTSA would know by now. The current investigation is about performance under specific conditions, and it's possible that improvement is possible and necessary. But overall crash rates have not reflected any significant extra danger by public use of FSD even in its primitive and flawed form of earlier this year and before.
the8472 2y ago
We also pay this price with every new human driver we train. again and again.
- dham 2y ago
  You won't be able to bring logic to people with Elon derangement syndrome.

If the answer was yes, presumably there’s a tradeoff where that deal would be reasonable.

So far, data points to it having far fewer crashes than a human alone. Teslas data shows that, but 3rd party data seems to imply the same.

rvnx 2y ago
It disconnects in case of dangerous situations, so every 33 miles to 77 miles driven (depending on the version), versus 400'000 miles for a human
llamaimperative 2y ago
Tesla does not release the data required to substantiate such a claim. It simply doesn’t and you’re either lying or being lied to.
- londons_explore 2y ago
  tesla releases this data: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
  - rainsford 2y ago
    That data is not an apples to apples comparison unless autopilot is used in exactly the same mix of conditions as human driving. Tesla doesn't share that in the report, but I'd bet it's not equivalent. I personally tend to turn on driving automation features (in my non-Tesla car) in easier conditions and drive myself when anything unusual or complicated is going on, and I'd bet most drivers of Teslas and otherwise do the same. This is important because I'd bet similar data on the use of standard, non-adaptive cruise control would similarly show it's much safer than human drivers. But of course that would be because people use cruise control most in long-distance highway driving outside of congested areas, where you're least likely to have an accident.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Per the other comment: no, they don't. This data is not enough to evaluate its safety. This is enough data to mislead people who spend <30 seconds thinking about the question though, so I guess that's something (something == misdirection and dishonesty). You've been lied to.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    No, it releases enough data to actively mislead you (because there is no way Tesla's data people are unaware of these factors): The report measures accidents in FSD mode. Qualifiers to FSD mode: the conditions, weather, road, location, traffic all have to meet a certain quality threshold before the system will be enabled (or not disable itself). Compare Sunnyvale on a clear spring day to Pittsburgh December nights. There's no qualifier to the "comparison": all drivers, all conditions, all weather, all roads, all location, all traffic. It's not remotely comparable, and Tesla's data people are not that stupid, so it's willfully misleading. This report does not include fatalities. It also doesn't consider any incident where there was not airbag deployment to be an accident. Sounds potentially reasonable until you consider: - first gen airbag systems were primitive: collision exceeds threshold, deploy. Currently, vehicle safety systems consider duration of impact, speeds, G-forces, amount of intrusion, angle of collision, and a multitude of other factors before deciding what, if any, systems to fire (seatbelt tensioners, airbags, etc.) So hit something at 30mph with the right variables? Tesla: "this is not an accident". - Tesla also does not consider "incident was so catastrophic that airbags COULD NOT deploy*" to be an accident, because "airbags didn't deploy". This umbrella could also include egregious, "systems failed to deploy for any reason up to and including poor assembly line quality control", as also not an accident and also "not counted".

Peanuts99 2y ago

If this is what society has to pay to improve Tesla's product, then perhaps they should have to share the software with other car manufacturers too. Otherwise every car brand will have to kill a whole heap of people too until they manage to make a FSD system.

modeless 2y ago
Elon has said many times that they are willing to license FSD but nobody else has been interested so far. Clearly that will change if they reach their goals. Also, "years of death and injury" is a bald-faced lie. NHTSA would have shut down FSD a long time ago if it were happening. The statistics Tesla has released to the public are lacking, it's true, but they cannot hide things from the NHTSA. FSD has been on the road for years and a billion miles and if it was overall significantly worse than normal driving (when supervised, of course) the NHTSA would know by now. The current investigation is about performance under specific conditions, and it's possible that improvement is possible and necessary. But overall crash rates have not reflected any significant extra danger by public use of FSD even in its primitive and flawed form of earlier this year and before.

the8472 2y ago

We also pay this price with every new human driver we train. again and again.

dham 2y ago
You won't be able to bring logic to people with Elon derangement syndrome.