Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

Post by mkirklions » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:54 PM UTC

pja wrote: post #247

ChuckMcM wrote: post #17

I have now talked with two people who have autopilot in their model S's and both said the problem with autopilot is that it is "too good". Specifically it works completely correctly like 80 - 90% of the time and as a result, if you use it a lot, you start to expect it to be working and not fail. If it beeps then to tell you to take over, you have to mentally get back into the situational awareness of the road and the…

The problem is that Autopilot is simultaneously too good and not good enough.

Post by riffic » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:56 PM UTC

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:57 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #331

ccalf wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK but if by saving 1000 lives a year required as a side-effect that you personally be among the fatalities, would that be OK for you? I hope not. Think of this as a technical corner case; so, the question is the soundness of the analysis—for example, the distribution of deaths and what that means for safety—and not letting various facile logic get in the way of that work.

Let’s imagine that auto-driving tech saves 2001 gross lives per year and kills 1001 people who wouldn’t have died in an all human driving world, for a net of 1000 lives saved. I think that’s a win, even if I now have an even statistical chance to be in the 1001 and no chance to be in the 2001. Requiring that I be in 1001 is not ok, no more than requiring I donate all my organs tomorrow. Allowing that I might be in th…

Post by morogop » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:57 PM UTC

nnf wrote: post #371

ldesegur wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From https://www.tesla.com/autopilot : "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver" Why do we keep referring to something that we understand should require human supervision as "auto"? Stop the marketing buzzfeed and let's be real.

I agree that since that statement is at the top of the /autopilot page may insinuate that that's what Autopilot is, but that statement is describing the hardware on the cars rather than the software. I think that's intended to be read as "if you buy a new Tesla, you'll be able to add the Full Self-Driving Capability with a future software update; no hardware updates required." It could be made more clear, though.

Post by gkya » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 2:02 PM UTC

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #285

antirez wrote: post #200

What is happening was clear to many since the start: Tesla incarnates the behavior of his founder, exaggerating the technology that is really available right now, and selling it as a product without the premise for it to be safe. A product that kinda drives your car but sometimes fails, and requires you to pay attention, is simply a crash that we are waiting to happen. And don't get trapped by the "data driven" analy…

> 1. Ethical. One thing is that you do a stupid thing and die. Another is that a technology fails in trivial circumstances that in theory are avoidable. A doctor can make also errors, but a medical device is required to be very safe and reliable in what it does. I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that because humans are known to be falible, but technology can be made nigh-infalible, that technology should…