611–620 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My dream is of a future where humans are banned from driving without special licenses.
So.........like right now you mean? You need a special licence to drive on a public road right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While we're at it how about why apply the same standard to coal and natural gas plants? For some reason when we start taking about nuclear plants we all of a sudden become adverse to the idea of unfunded externalities but when we're talking about 'old' tech that has been steadily irradiating your community and changing the gas composition of the entire planet it becomes less concerning.
I think it is a matter of perceived risk. Realistically speaking, nuclear power is pretty safe. In the history of nuclear power, there were two major incidents. Considering the number of nuclear power plants around the planet, that is pretty good. However, as those two accidents demonstrated, the potential fallout of those incidents is pretty severe and widespread. I think this massively contributes to the perceived…
Climate change is very visible in the present day to me. People are protesting about it frequently enough that it's hard to claim they are not worried.
The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it. It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable. How about a quarter? Or a tenth? Accidents caused by human drivers are one of the largest causes of injury and death, but they're not newsworthy the way an accident involving automated driving is. It's all too easy to se…
Many people don't (and shouldn't) take the "half the casualty rate" at face value. My biggest concern is that Waymo and Tesla are juking the stats to make self-driving cars seem safer than they really are. I believe this is largely an unintentional consequence of bad actuary science coming from bad qualitative statistics; the worst kind of lying with numbers is lying to yourself. The biggest gap in these studies: I h…
Even intentional juking aside, you can't really compare the two.
Waymo cars drive completely autonomously, without a supervising driver in the car. If it does something unsafe, there's no one there to correct it, and it may get into a crash, in the same way a human driver doing that same unsafe thing might.
With Tesla FSD, we have no idea how good it really is. We know that a human is supervising it, and despite all the reports we see of people doing super irresponsible things while "driving" a Tesla (like taking a nap), I imagine most Tesla FSD users are actually attentively supervising for the most part. If all FSD users stopped supervising and started taking naps, I suspect the crash rate and fatality rate would start looking like the rate for the worst drivers on the road... or even worse than that.
So it's not that they're juking their stats (although they may be), it's that they don't actually have all the stats that matter. Waymo has and had those stats, because their trained human test drivers were reporting when the car did something unsafe and they had to take over. Tesla FSD users don't report when they have to do that. The data is just not there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe Waymo has already beaten this metric.
Waymo is limited to cities that their engineers has to map and this map maintained. You cannot put a waymo in a new city before that. With Tesla, what you get is universal.
Tesla FSD is just everywhere, without any accountability or trained testing on all the roads people use them on. We have no idea how often Tesla FSD users have to take control from FSD due to a safety issue.
Waymo is objectively safer, and their entire approach is objectively safer, and is actually measurable, whereas Tesla FSD's safety cannot actually be accurately measured.
The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it. It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable. How about a quarter? Or a tenth? Accidents caused by human drivers are one of the largest causes of injury and death, but they're not newsworthy the way an accident involving automated driving is. It's all too easy to se…
"Tesla says on its website its FSD software in on-road vehicles requires active driver supervision and does not make vehicles autonomous." Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving." Tesla should be sued out of existence.
It's called "Full Self-Driving (Supervised) Beta" and you agree that you understand that you have to pay attention and are responsible for the safety of the car before you turn it on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the question is: “was FSD activated at the time of the accident: yes/no”, they can legally claim no, for example if luckily the FSD disconnects half a second before a dangerous situation (eg: glare obstructing cameras), which may coincide exactly with the times of some accidents.
> To ensure our statistics are conservative, we count any crash in which Autopilot was deactivated within 5 seconds before impact, and we count all crashes in which the incident alert indicated an airbag or other active restraint deployed. Scroll down to Methodology at https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
The FSD numbers are much more hidden.
The general accident rate is 1 per 400’000 miles driven.
FSD has one “critical disengagement” (aka before accident if human or safety braking doesn’t intervene) every 33 miles driven.
It means to reach unsupervised with human quality they would need to improve it 10’000 times in few months. Not saying it is impossible, just highly optimistic. In 10 years we will be there, but in 2 months, sounds a bit overpromising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the example here is that the designer draws a bridge for a railway model, and someone decides to use the same design and sends real locomotives across it. Is the original designer (who neither intended nor could have foreseen this) liable in your understanding?
That's a ridiculous argument. If a construction firm takes an arbitrary design and then tries to build it in a totally different environment and for a different purpose, then the construction firm is liable, not the original designer. It'd be like Boeing taking a child's paper aeroplane design and making a passenger jet out of it and then blaming the child when it inevitably fails.