4 ms·

> That's exactly the problem. It's great right until it isn't, at which point it's likely to make a decision that will kill you or someone else if you aren't lu

> That's exactly the problem. It's great right until it isn't, at which point it's likely to make a decision that will kill you or someone else if you aren't lucky. This should be weighed against the fallibility of human drivers, surely? Our point of comparison is not "perfect", it's "human." Inasmuch, with millions of miles driven, FSD appears to be many times safer than humans: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tesla-Autopilot-and-FSD-are-now-6x-safer-than-human-drivers-who-turn-them-off-to-text-from-their-phones.955050.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tesla-Autopilot-and-FSD-are-no... Not perfect, and there will be crashes, but much better, and I think that's the yard stick we should be using, because no system will ever be perfect.

watwut 1y ago
Tesla comes across safer when you compare the performance under completely different conditions and then shift blame on humans for not reacting in a second when Tesla suddenly disengage.
- Gareth321 1y ago
  Tesla records all FSD accidents when it has been engaged 10 seconds prior to the crash. I don't think your claim is accurate but if you have a source I would be glad to read it.
enragedcacti 1y ago
Those are numbers for Autopilot, not FSD. Autopilot is driving mostly highway miles which have much lower crash rates than the highway/city combined stat Tesla compares against. More importantly, those statistics describe the safety of a supervised system and can't be used to infer the safety of the system on it's own. Tesla refuses to disclose the industry standard "miles per disengagement" for FSD but crowdsourced data puts them at 456, pitiful compared to humans and other self-driving projects. [1] Also to note, FSD disengagements are probably common enough to still be on the left hand side of the "Valley of Degraded Supervision"[2], where mistakes are common enough that users stay viligant. As mi/de increases to 5,000 or 50,000, the quality of the supervision could degrade to the point that the supervised system is less safe than an unaided driver. [1] https://teslafsdtracker.com/Main https://teslafsdtracker.com/Main [2] https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman19_TestingSafetyCase_SAEWCX.pdf https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman19_TestingSaf...

watwut 1y ago

Tesla comes across safer when you compare the performance under completely different conditions and then shift blame on humans for not reacting in a second when Tesla suddenly disengage.

Gareth321 1y ago
Tesla records all FSD accidents when it has been engaged 10 seconds prior to the crash. I don't think your claim is accurate but if you have a source I would be glad to read it.

enragedcacti 1y ago

Those are numbers for Autopilot, not FSD. Autopilot is driving mostly highway miles which have much lower crash rates than the highway/city combined stat Tesla compares against. More importantly, those statistics describe the safety of a supervised system and can't be used to infer the safety of the system on it's own. Tesla refuses to disclose the industry standard "miles per disengagement" for FSD but crowdsourced data puts them at 456, pitiful compared to humans and other self-driving projects. [1] Also to note, FSD disengagements are probably common enough to still be on the left hand side of the "Valley of Degraded Supervision"[2], where mistakes are common enough that users stay viligant. As mi/de increases to 5,000 or 50,000, the quality of the supervision could degrade to the point that the supervised system is less safe than an unaided driver. [1] https://teslafsdtracker.com/Main https://teslafsdtracker.com/Main [2] https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman19_TestingSafetyCase_SAEWCX.pdf https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman19_TestingSaf...