4 ms·

[citation needed] Tesla releases all self driving statistics including time since disengagement of self-driving before accident, right?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
smallmancontrov 2y ago
https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting#:~:text=ADS%3A%20Entities%20named%20in%20the,in%20property%20damage%20or%20injury. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-orde... The numbers include all incidents where self-driving was active within 30 seconds of the crash, because of course they do. The meme that Tesla is allowed to simply bypass reporting on a technicality would be absurd if it weren't so voraciously spread by post-truth luddites. Look, if you want to dunk on Elon, I get it, but he does so many real shitty things that I would ask you to focus on those and not make shit up.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- triplesec 2y ago
  Guess what: Musk will probably get this rewuirement scrapped by his orange mate. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/trump-transition-recommends-scrapping-car-crash-reporting-requirement-opposed-by-2024-12-13/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/trump-...
  - smallmancontrov 2y ago
    Finally some good criticism in this godforsaken thread. Yes, Elon wants to do corruption and we should oppose him.
- bumby 2y ago
  If Tesla is Level 2, that link doesn’t support the OPs point about “all” incidents, but rather only those involved in a fatality, hospital treatment, airbag deployment, or towed vehicle. Am I reading that link correctly?
  - smallmancontrov 2y ago
    The problem with "all" incidents is that reporting bias drowns the whole thing in noise. I clipped a curb the other year and didn't report it to anyone -- am I messing up the statistics? In contrast, hospitalizations and bodies are concrete enough to all but eliminate reporting bias. Of course, at first this just substitutes one type of problem for another because even shitty drivers have to drive many lifetimes of distance before killing anyone so you wind up with the unfortunately named "shot noise" from small-N. But Tesla FSD drives so many miles that the statistics are no longer small-N. If supervised FSD was worse than human, we should be seeing many more bodies than we do, so supervised FSD is clearly better than human. Of course, that number needs to be adjusted for critical interventions before we can say anything about unsupervised FSD, and in an ideal universe I wish Tesla was forced to disclose those figures. Unfortunately, we live in a universe where luddites are firmly in control of this conversation and I cannot deny that a forced disclosure would be heavily abused in a way that costs lives. Still, regulators get to see the numbers before approving unsupervised rollouts, and as a compromise this makes neither myself nor the luddites happy but I suppose it will do.
    - bumby 2y ago
      It almost belies a need for some sort of standardized testing as well. Self-reporting seems like a weak point that can be gamed. To your point about luddites, that’s why I think it’s erroneous to use “as good as a human” as the metric. It will need to be much better than a human but those people reluctantly trust it enough to hand over control.
- daveguy 2y ago
  First, do not put words in my mouth. I did not claim he was "bypassing" federal reporting. Although he quite literally bypassed much more strict self driving reporting in CA by claiming it was ADAS instead of ADS. So maybe know the facts before calling someone a Luddite. What I literally said was Tesla doesn't release all of the self-driving statistics, like time to disengagement. They are noticeably more cagey about releasing that kind of info claiming it as "trade secret". Did you see the data sets you pointed to before pointing to them? Full of Tesla crashes, and full of redactions. I don't need to dunk on Elon. He dunks on himself. Some people just worship him too hard to realize it.
- Veserv 2y ago
  That number is incidents successfully detected, not ground truth. Last I looked, the majority of recorded fatalities went undetected by Tesla telematics. That demonstrates their accident detection/reporting is empirically incapable of producing a robust ground truth estimate. The number presented is a lower bound with no identifiable upper bound. A upper bound could be easily produced by Tesla. All vehicle fatalities identified by police are recorded in the national Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) [1]. Tesla could investigate every recorded Tesla fatality by VIN and cross-reference with their telemetry to determine if their systems were available at all or active on or near the time of the fatal crash. This would cost them between a few thousand dollars to a few million dollars annually, depending on desired precision, which compared to the billions it makes annually is minuscule sum to affirmatively establish safety. They intentionally choose to not do so. Instead deliberately deceiving consumers and the public by conflating the lower bound with a upper bound in all official safety messaging. Even ignoring their gross incompetence or maliciousness in not doing simple safety analysis when numerous lives are on the line. The mere fact they conflate a lower bound with a upper bound in their messaging is scientific malfeasance of the highest order. Their reporting has zero credibility when they make such clear and intentional misreporting purely for their own benefit to the detriment of the public and even their own customers. [1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-report...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

smallmancontrov 2y ago

https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting#:~:text=ADS%3A%20Entities%20named%20in%20the,in%20property%20damage%20or%20injury. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-orde... The numbers include all incidents where self-driving was active within 30 seconds of the crash, because of course they do. The meme that Tesla is allowed to simply bypass reporting on a technicality would be absurd if it weren't so voraciously spread by post-truth luddites. Look, if you want to dunk on Elon, I get it, but he does so many real shitty things that I would ask you to focus on those and not make shit up.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
triplesec 2y ago
Guess what: Musk will probably get this rewuirement scrapped by his orange mate. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/trump-transition-recommends-scrapping-car-crash-reporting-requirement-opposed-by-2024-12-13/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/trump-...
- smallmancontrov 2y ago
  Finally some good criticism in this godforsaken thread. Yes, Elon wants to do corruption and we should oppose him.
bumby 2y ago
If Tesla is Level 2, that link doesn’t support the OPs point about “all” incidents, but rather only those involved in a fatality, hospital treatment, airbag deployment, or towed vehicle. Am I reading that link correctly?
- smallmancontrov 2y ago
  The problem with "all" incidents is that reporting bias drowns the whole thing in noise. I clipped a curb the other year and didn't report it to anyone -- am I messing up the statistics? In contrast, hospitalizations and bodies are concrete enough to all but eliminate reporting bias. Of course, at first this just substitutes one type of problem for another because even shitty drivers have to drive many lifetimes of distance before killing anyone so you wind up with the unfortunately named "shot noise" from small-N. But Tesla FSD drives so many miles that the statistics are no longer small-N. If supervised FSD was worse than human, we should be seeing many more bodies than we do, so supervised FSD is clearly better than human. Of course, that number needs to be adjusted for critical interventions before we can say anything about unsupervised FSD, and in an ideal universe I wish Tesla was forced to disclose those figures. Unfortunately, we live in a universe where luddites are firmly in control of this conversation and I cannot deny that a forced disclosure would be heavily abused in a way that costs lives. Still, regulators get to see the numbers before approving unsupervised rollouts, and as a compromise this makes neither myself nor the luddites happy but I suppose it will do.
  - bumby 2y ago
    It almost belies a need for some sort of standardized testing as well. Self-reporting seems like a weak point that can be gamed. To your point about luddites, that’s why I think it’s erroneous to use “as good as a human” as the metric. It will need to be much better than a human but those people reluctantly trust it enough to hand over control.
daveguy 2y ago
First, do not put words in my mouth. I did not claim he was "bypassing" federal reporting. Although he quite literally bypassed much more strict self driving reporting in CA by claiming it was ADAS instead of ADS. So maybe know the facts before calling someone a Luddite. What I literally said was Tesla doesn't release all of the self-driving statistics, like time to disengagement. They are noticeably more cagey about releasing that kind of info claiming it as "trade secret". Did you see the data sets you pointed to before pointing to them? Full of Tesla crashes, and full of redactions. I don't need to dunk on Elon. He dunks on himself. Some people just worship him too hard to realize it.
Veserv 2y ago
That number is incidents successfully detected, not ground truth. Last I looked, the majority of recorded fatalities went undetected by Tesla telematics. That demonstrates their accident detection/reporting is empirically incapable of producing a robust ground truth estimate. The number presented is a lower bound with no identifiable upper bound. A upper bound could be easily produced by Tesla. All vehicle fatalities identified by police are recorded in the national Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) [1]. Tesla could investigate every recorded Tesla fatality by VIN and cross-reference with their telemetry to determine if their systems were available at all or active on or near the time of the fatal crash. This would cost them between a few thousand dollars to a few million dollars annually, depending on desired precision, which compared to the billions it makes annually is minuscule sum to affirmatively establish safety. They intentionally choose to not do so. Instead deliberately deceiving consumers and the public by conflating the lower bound with a upper bound in all official safety messaging. Even ignoring their gross incompetence or maliciousness in not doing simple safety analysis when numerous lives are on the line. The mere fact they conflate a lower bound with a upper bound in their messaging is scientific malfeasance of the highest order. Their reporting has zero credibility when they make such clear and intentional misreporting purely for their own benefit to the detriment of the public and even their own customers. [1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-report...