Hacker News Reader

Comment by svet_0 | Hacker News Reader

You're right, autonomous driving will never reach 100%, however I'm convinced it will be 10x human in a few years, mostly due to:

* Better sensors - ~10 cameras around the car vs 2 cameras on a limited gimble.

* Very high consistency - Speed, distance from other cars, optimal stopping distance from a switching stop light, better speed/distance estimation of other entities (eventually)

* No distractions - a computer will never drunk drive / look at their phone / argue with the passenger / have road rage.

IMO These advantages will out-balance the very rare ambiguous soft situations a computer will have a hard time handling, let's say a custom written no-entry sign or a cop waving their hand.

View on HN

"These advantages will out-balance the very rare ambiguous soft situations"

Tesla has driven into a solid concrete wall, that does not seem ambiguous to me

Humans have done that too. Meanwhile Tesla’s autopilot has many instances of saving humans who would’ve other crashed.

There is always the argument of Tesla being safer than drunk, intoxicated drivers. First, I would not be too sure about that, but I would rather the governments implement a DUI check as well as some sort of alertness test before an engine can be started than trust the current fsd software. Put speed limiters as per the given location and the DUI check in all cars , then let's compare the numbers again.

And how can a Tesla save any driver when any driver is supposed to be in full control of the vehicle at any given time? If a driver needs Tesla as a saviour, then he has no business being behind the steering wheel.

We don't need more government in our lives. However instead of all that overbearing safety equipment, why not just have automatic driving?

> "when any driver is supposed to be in full control of the vehicle at any given time?"

Because this is not reality. Nobody is in full awareness and control of the vehicle at all times, that's just how humans work. Even if we were, we still don't have the same reaction speeds. If you actually watch the Tesla examples, you'll lots of aware drivers who just didn't notice or react in time to a collision.

Your entire premise is faulty. We can't work with what should be but rather what actually is.

You're making a claim that in a counterfactual world, FSD might be safer than human drivers. Even if this were true (which obviously there's no evidence of), why is that an argument against FSD in the real world?

Have you ever heard of an alert, sober driver just driving into a wall for no reason? surely 99% of the time thy were drunk, or texting, or falling asleep at the wheel.

I am not using FSD untill it's better than an average professional driver, like a bus driver, who have to be sober, etc. If something goes wrong there is not enough time to intervene.

Yes, people have driven into walls, buildings, cars, lakes, even other people, while being completely aware.

Many accidents (including the ones that Tesla's have prevented) include completely normal drivers who made mistakes. If AI can make fewer/no mistakes, and react better to mistakes by others, than it's a better overall outcome.

Do you currently drive a car? Is there any evidence that you're an above-average driver? If you answered "yes" to the first question and "no" to the second, then why wouldn't you trust a self-driving car as soon as it's known to be better than the average human driver?

You are doing bait-and-switch:

I am not better than average driver in skill, I am safer than average.

Being 'better than average' by comparing to national crash statistics means better than a half-drunk guy who is sleep deprived to boot.

I don't drink, I don't need to drive for 8 hours straight, my vehicle is in good condition, I dont have to deal with a gravel path through the mountains, etc. Those are the people that dies and they are in that statistics

So? There's no fundamental problem with identifying static 3D objects with vision. If anything it will be one of the things that become more consistent than humans sooner than later. I think the control/planning part is probably much harder than vision/perception (maybe except "soft" perception).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com