Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. The problem with this is statistics: you need to have your autonomous cars travel at least 100 billion miles before you can confidently say they're an order of magnitude safer. A normal car drives about 100 000 miles in 10 years. You then need one million autonomous cars driving around for a decade before you even know whether they're safer!
That's very true, but if you know your product well enough, and you perform well conducted experiments, you can come up with a good estimate for this without actually having your cars travel 100 billion miles.
A Tragic Loss
271–280 of 511 posts
Re: A Tragic Loss
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just about Tesla though. They have to defend autopilot not only to protect the brand but to protect the public's perception of autonomous vehicles in general. Self driving tech is poised to save many many lives. So from a utilitarian perspective, it's probably justified to take extraordinary measures to make sure reactionary media and public whim doesn't kill it off, however uncomfortable that might seem in…
> Self driving tech is poised to save many many lives. The computer would have to be 99.99999% reliable to do that. The accident rate is around 74 per 100 million miles (and fatalities is 1.13). It's unclear exactly how to turn that into a percentage, but no matter how you do it it's quite high. Say an accident takes 5 minutes, and people drive 30 miles/hour. Then that works out to 99.999% for humans. If you use the…
Additionally, 92 people are killed in fatal car accidents in the US every day. So it's not as though this is some uncommon occurrence that autonomous vehicles would be unlikely to improve.
Re: A Tragic Loss
#273The top comment in another comment thread, which has been "duped"[0] pointed out how marking a feature in cars as "beta" is irresponsible. What's beyond the pale IMO is that when auto-pilot was first demonstrated (at the unveil event) - "hands on the wheel" was not part of the story. Journalists and (what appeared to be) Tesla employees were using the feature without hands on the wheel. It looked like Tesla cashing-i…
Because that makes it less useful. I am a Tesla owner. I am an adult capable of monitoring the car and taking control when autopilot gets confused. My hand being on the wheel at all times is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for verifying that I am paying attention and am ready to take over control.
> One death is too many.
I am sick and tired of absolutist statements about risk. Why do you allow cars on the road at all? Why allow cars to have cupholders? Why are drive-through restaurants legal? You make utility-risk trade-offs all the fucking time.
Re: A Tragic Loss
#274This is on the road to being off topic, but still relevant given some of the commentary in this thread: It makes me a bit sad that the political zeitgeist in the tech community is leaning towards "acceptable losses" when it comes to accidents in automated cars, to the point of pre-emptively expressing disdain at ordinary people reacting negatively to such news. I sense it's going to become harder and harder for us to…
Acceptable losses is the only possibility, if we are to have cars at all. Everyone is on the side of less death, but since there are some inherent dangers in zooming along at 120km/h, the losses can only approach zero and will never reach it. The fact that cars are used at all shows that we make something like a utilitarian decision already. They are very, very useful, with a small possibility of personal catastrophe…
I think this situation is a bit different than the arrival of air travel or even the automobile, because with all those technologies, humans were still making, or validating, all the life-and-death decisions (barring technical failure). I also think the kind of death we're talking about matters a whole lot. What if autos were incredibly safe, but far more prone than ordinary drivers to running over small children and pets? Would society accept that?
Many people are not comfortable with impenetrable algorithms managing their safety on a mass scale, or indeed, with making any conscious decisions at all when it comes to "trolley problem" issues. And that discomfort is well within their rights. Technological progress is not a divine edict, but something that society has to negotiate and agree upon. The debate should be respected.
Re: A Tragic Loss
#275This is on the road to being off topic, but still relevant given some of the commentary in this thread: It makes me a bit sad that the political zeitgeist in the tech community is leaning towards "acceptable losses" when it comes to accidents in automated cars, to the point of pre-emptively expressing disdain at ordinary people reacting negatively to such news. I sense it's going to become harder and harder for us to…
What. "Acceptable losses" is, and has always been the rule when it comes to accidents in all cars, ever. We've made absolutely massive safety improvements in the last few decades, cutting the death rate to around 1/3 of its historical maximum, yet even so tens of thousands of people will die in America alone this year (probably in the neighborhood of ~30k). And next year. And the year after. According to the World Health Organization, there were 1.25 million road traffic deaths in 2013, and if anything I'd expect that to have continued to rise as more and more people worldwide gain access to vehicles.
Yet we will absolutely continue to support car use, because flexible mechanized point-to-point personal transportation is insanely valuable to us (and in fact American society at least simply could not function without it at all at this point). You can dress it up however you like, but the objective fact of the matter is that literally millions of deaths are considered "acceptable losses" here.
Full automation represents our absolutely best shot to reduce the horrendous, annual loss of human life. So personally, I find your appeal to emotion and thinly veiled "what about the children" shtick disgusting and immoral. You've invented imaginary "rights" that absolutely do not and should not exist. Your so called
>"blind push forward at the expense of human lives"
is literally the opposite of what automation aims to accomplish. And I will freely assert will accomplish, because humans are awful drivers. Really, automation is merely filling in the missing piece of personalized transport that we should have had from the start, except that our mechanical technological development was far ahead of our information gathering and processing technological development. Having a human handling that has always been a hack, and getting rid of it has such vast positives that it absolutely justifies a very strong push forward as soon as possible. Every year without driverless vehicles when we could have had them is literally hundreds of thousands more people dead.
This tech does not exist in a vacuum, and context absolutely matters.
Re: A Tragic Loss
#276I also think that Tesla does not do anywhere near enough to educate brand-new owners, especially the non-techie later-adopter owners that are starting to buy Teslas in droves. They're turned loose with these cars and there are enough weirdnesses with the usability and user experience of driving and operating the car that it catches up on people. Add to that the cognitive distractions of 21st century life (esp mobile devices) and you have the makings of new kinds of "normal accidents."
I suspect that some time soon it will be a requirement that either DMVs issue new rules for having a license to operate a vehicle with autonomous capability, or, they'll require the manufacturer to certify that the buyer has gone through a certified course of instruction and training offered by the manufacturer or its designate.
It may well be that in this case, the victim, who was clearly a Tesla enthusiast and knew a lot about autopilot, may have passed any such testing by DMV or manufacturer with flying colors. Not the point. In general, as Tesla and other manufacturers make autonomy more mainstream, we're going to see these edge case situations more frequently.
Me, I view autopilot as a dangerous feature that I would never, ever trust. As a set of incredible SENSORS that help me with second-by-second situational awareness while driving, fine. As a replacement for my driving, hell no.
Re: A Tragic Loss
#277The top comment in another comment thread, which has been "duped"[0] pointed out how marking a feature in cars as "beta" is irresponsible. What's beyond the pale IMO is that when auto-pilot was first demonstrated (at the unveil event) - "hands on the wheel" was not part of the story. Journalists and (what appeared to be) Tesla employees were using the feature without hands on the wheel. It looked like Tesla cashing-i…
> hey do the check frequency is low. why can't it be high?! Because that makes it less useful. I am a Tesla owner. I am an adult capable of monitoring the car and taking control when autopilot gets confused. My hand being on the wheel at all times is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for verifying that I am paying attention and am ready to take over control. > One death is too many. I am sick and tired o…
Then you are not using the feature the way Tesla says you should, the only way Tesla says it's safe to be used.
> I am sick and tired of absolutist statements about risk.
Recklessly rolling out tech is screwing the industry-at-large, given the regulatory hurdles that must be overcome.
>> One death is too many.
You took this out of context. When Tesla makes no genuine, up-front attempt to educate users on how to use Auto-Pilot--yes, one death is too many.
Correctly-deployed autonomous driving stands to save thousands of lives annually; what's at risk is some overeager company @#!$ing the regulatory efforts by being irresponsible at scale.
Re: A Tragic Loss
#278The robot led him to believe it was more competent than it really was.
Re: A Tragic Loss
#279This is why driving AI is 'all or nothing' for me. Assisted systems will lead to drivers paying less attention as the systems get better. The figures quoted by Tesla seem impressive but you have to assume the majority of the drivers is still paying attention all the time . As auto-pilots get better you'll see them paying attention less and then the accident rate will go up, not down for a while at least until the bug…
"You need to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times during autosteering, yet not crank the wheel hard enough to generate what the car thinks is an actual steering input (thereby disconnecting autosteer). I found this to be about the same amount of effort as simply driving."
I thought that was an interesting observation.
http://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2016/06/27/smug-rich-bastard-...
Re: A Tragic Loss
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah i can't believe this is not bigger news. The Tesla AI was almost good enough to replace an attentive driver. But almost is not good enough.
> replace an attentive driver It's unrealistic to assume that human drivers are attentive all the time. Autopilot never gets tired, never eats, never applies makeup, never sneezes, and never gets distracted by screaming children. You have to compare autopilot to realistic humans, not your platonic ideal of what a driver should be. I'm sick and tired of people making statements about road transit predicated on the ide…