> For BETA software, FSD 9 is doing remarkably well
If this was a React website, that'd be great. But it's a production $40,000 multi ton automobile.
Based on the full-length videos, I'd say it's more like 99.9% or even 99.99% for FSD 9.
Human drivers don't steer towards concrete pillars every time they drive down the street.
The new software seen here hasn’t been released so there’s no data yet. We cannot possibly make an assessment based on a few hand-picked videos - a quick YouTube search will give you thousands of human driver examples that are even more dumb.
> In the 1st quarter [2021], we registered one accident for every 4.19 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.05 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 978 thousand miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles.
Their autopilot stat is also misleading because AP will most likely be engaged only in ideal weather conditions on divided roads.
Mostly the Tesla numbers are comparing accident rates of just Teslas. You can ignore average accident rate across all vehicles if you like.
If would be truly great if the NHTSA could publish accident rates broken down is various ways like by road type and weather conditions. I’ve never been able to find this data.
Given the telemetry the car is equipped with they absolutely have the data to control for some of these factors yet they make no attempt to do so. Why is that? My take is that after doing so autopilot doesn't look so good.
The point being that the failure rates society accepts for cars are actually pretty amazingly low and human drivers are surprisingly good. These things are measured with 6-7 9s as a non-negotiable minimum, so positing hypotheticals at the 99-99.99% is highly non-representative of what is actually acceptable.
Anybody discussing things at that level is making a pretty fundamental category error and any conclusion that anyone might draw from those thought experiments are largely invalid due to the multiple order of magnitude difference between such a thought experiment and reality.
Not really a great metric. We should be looking at disengagements per MM.
The part of the discussion that concerns their marketing is uninteresting and overdone; someone else can discuss that part.
You assumed numbers are time. Now assume numbers are manoeuvres.
Are you OK with that or do you think we should attempt to fix that with software? If you do think you should attempt to fix that, do you understand that software engineering is a iterative process? It gets safer overtime.
That's a straw man argument. Mandatory breathalyzer tests before every engine start and yearly medical and psychological check-ups would solve a lot of these problems as well.
> It gets safer overtime.
There is no evidence of this happening yet. It's still trying to drive people into concrete pillars. Remember that you only need to drive into a pillar once to die. Passing it 10,000 times before doesn't help when an update suddenly decides that the pillar is now a lane.
I'd be totally fine with Tesla testing this with trained drivers in suitable areas but giving this into the hands of amateurs is pure "move fast and break things", with "break" meaning ending lives.
The worst thing is: all of these videos feature sunny weather. How bad would it be in the rain? Ever tried to take picture in the dark with even light rain? Cameras are very bad at this.
These drivers are vetted and their usage is monitored, many are employees. In the long run automated driving will save many more lives than it takes. Just like automated elevators.
https://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990392/remembering-when-dr....
This does not seem like an important nit to pick, so I'm wondering why you're picking it. The number of people killed or injured because a driver had a heart attack at the wheel is vanishingly small compared to drunk or distracted driving.
So let's reframe your question as you should have asked it:
"If someone is driving drunk or distracted we should take away their license?"
Yes. Absolutely.
That in itself doesn't constitute evidence that it isn't getting safer. After all humans occasionally drive into concrete pillars too.
What matters is that the distance traveled without incident goes up in a super-linear fashion over time. It would be nice if someone had hard numbers on that.
But that's besides the point. I was arguing about the trend line. It may seem silly now, but if the error rate is roughly a straight line on a logarithmic graph then we'll get there soon enough. If it isn't then tesla at very least would have to admit they have a problem and explain how they'll get out of it.
> There is no evidence of this happening yet.
With aircraft any crash or near-crash is investigated and then the software and procedures for all similar aircraft are updated. Over the decades this has resulted in a huge reduction in the rate of accidents. Isn't it likely that the same thing will happen with self-driving cars?
We don't do that today and we are still allowing people to drive on the road today.