301–310 of 351 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have anything to back this up? That seems like a pretty big claim to make unsubstantiated. If autopilot literally ignores staionary objects, you would see them crash much more often than they do.
It has been in the media. https://www.google.com/search?q=tesla+ignores+stationary+obj... Edit to add: apologies for terse response, a bit distracted at present
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that it's important to note that "we'll fix bugs via live patches" is a deadly decision when it comes to self driving software. Just discussing the incident in terms of a "software bug" does a disservice to the severity of the issue.
Remember, autopilot and autosteer are not self-driving. Tesla is very explicit that the driver must remain alert, and supervise, at all times. That being said, drowsy driving is a thing, and it's very easy to fall asleep behind the wheel. The car really needs a better strategy to handle this situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i would not take those chances. if the self driving car is only slightly better then average driver in fatal accidents that's not good enough. most of accidents happen because of distractions (texting and so on) and if a self driving car is only slightly better then average driver I can get a lot better if I just don't use my smartphone while driving and don't sit behind a wheel tired. so it's not enough to be better…
I wouldn't trust my life to proprietary software, because its makers' motives obviously don't align with my own. If my safety was really paramount, they'd open their software to scrutiny. It's unethical to leave life-and-death decisions to a black-box algorithm, when I know it was written for the primary purpose of gathering more money. Safety is a constraint, not their goal.
The power grid, railway, traffic lights, elevators, etc. all these systems are critical and closed source, and you don't see them killing people on a wide scale nor even on a small scale but regular basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m pretty sure it is still 2019.
And you're expecting reliability to improve by a factor of ten million before 2020?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't you mean selling a weeding tool as a "flame thrower" ?
What you describe would be a disappointment. What he describe would be life-threatening.
Eventually we need the NTSB to certify updates before they are pushed out over the air. Similar to what the FAA does. These OTA updates are not ok for large machinery and endagers not only the Tesla driver but all others on the road.
It's quite clear in this case that Tesla doesn't have an organisational structure that fulfills the requirements for functional safety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but the probability of you dying because you do have a pacemaker is (in the situations for which a pacemaker is prescribed) far less than the probability of you dying because you don't have a pacemaker. The same cannot yet be said about "self-driving" cars.
> Right, but the probability of you dying because you do have a pacemaker is (in the situations for which a pacemaker is prescribed) far less than the probability of you dying because you don't have a pacemaker. That assumes the pacemaker works more often than it doesn't. (Which is the case now.) It's an unstated assumption that doesn't always apply when generalizing your example.
Even if pacemaker fails 90% of the time 90% chance of death is better than a 100% without it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re implying that agency is the element that is most desired. Ie if a human crashes and kills themselves/others, it is ok, because someone is at fault. If the car is anywhere from slightly to quite a lot safer, but accidents that result in injuries/deaths occur, then it is not ok. Psychologically you may feel this to be ‘right’ but I would prefer a world with less injuries and deaths all round. And one day the cou…
no I'm just saying that average is not good enough. imagine lung cancer for example, if we take average then it's 6% risk taking smookers and not smookes, but if I decided not to smoke then it's 0.2%. so in this case I can do better for lowering the chances then when I would accept some other solution that would let us all have it at 5% witch might seem ok but not for me.
Warning: Autosteer is intended for use only on highways and limited-access roads with a fully attentive driver. When using Autosteer, hold the steering wheel and be mindful of road conditions and surrounding traffic. Do not use Autosteer on city streets, in construction zones, or in areas where bicyclists or pedestrians may be present. Never depend on Autosteer to determine an appropriate driving path. Always be prep…