Will they ground all the Tesla cars remotely? Or disable autopilot remotely? Until they have gathered new training data and updated the software?
Not saying cars should do the same, just that it's not absurd to consider it.
I would rather describe it as sleeping at the wheel, passed out drunk and having pissed their pants after vomiting a bottle of hard liquir.
Okay, maybe i got carried away with the metaphor, but you get the idea
Disclaimer: I really try to work on my ability to word stuff more diplomatically. HN is a good training ground for that!
> In the 2nd quarter, we recorded one crash for every 4.41 million miles driven in which drivers were using Autopilot technology (Autosteer and active safety features). For drivers who were not using Autopilot technology (no Autosteer and active safety features), we recorded one crash for every 1.2 million miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles.
Tesla publishes these safety reports; the accident rate has held fairly steady quarter over quarter: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
The other immediately obvious issue is that the self driving features of a Tesla probably work best in ideal conditions, where human drivers also do.
That’s a big if. If we solved aging, we’d save nearly all lives, so please don’t regulate my medical practice. I expect to have aging solved and millions of treatments rolled out by 2020.
Because the dead person has a name, a tragic story, and grieving relatives, which will make the news.
The 100 saved people are anonymous, don't know they were saved by X, and this will be unreported outside of obscure research journals.
The ratio isn't 1:1 or even 1:10, but there is a line somewhere where X deaths <caused by new tech> is acceptable because of the X^Y lives saved <by new tech>.
See also: Most modes of transport, most medicines and surgical procedures.
Nothing good comes from trying to treat them as the same.
The same argument applies - sorry you died, but the data might save someone else's life down the line.
A lot of unique medical data was produced by Nazis doing cruel experiments on people.
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/learn-from-nazi-medical-res...
If everyone was flying their personal planes around and constantly banging into each other a minor software bug would not ground any planes. It would be more like a malfunctioning airbag recall.
What we need is a big fat lawsuit, since the government will not do anything to anger the only profitable US automaker.
Also, just how that part of the 737MAX was certified is the real scandal, if you ask me. This is the literal example proofing the rule, so.
I tried FSD on the $200/month plan and dropped it: It makes the car unsafe. To command a lane change you hold down the turn signal stalk. If you fail to hold it down long enough the car suddenly swerves back to the lane it was in. This is (to say the least) disconcerting at 80 mph.
FSD can also suddenly decide to do weird things that are difficult to correct even when you're paying close attention. It's unnerving. Ordinary autosteer (which is included with every Tesla at no extra charge) works well enough for me and it fails in more predictable ways; it's easy for me to build a mental model of its limitations. I'll stick with that.
Maybe due to personal profit?
https://old.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/kxj0or/twitter_s...
I'm confident that this would apply to just about anyone that has ever bought, and then sold, Tesla stock. Because, and I don't mean to overstate the obvious, if one's opinion didn't change then why sell the stock?
This isn't true. You just tap the stalk down until it clicks. Sometimes if it detects issues in the other lane it will not complete the lane change and go back into your existing lane. But you do not have to hold it down the whole time.
Because he doesn’t understand it and thinks it’s magic. He has not much clue about modern tech and is just buying into the hype.
That's not quite accurate. Unrelated to autopilot / FSD, you can do a small press on the turn signal and it will signal three times and then stop signaling. You can also push all the way down and it will signal until you turn it off. You don't have to hold it down.
FSD will only continue switching lanes while the turn signal is on, so if you do a small press down, you may see the behavior you described.
But the former required me to actively hold it down for several seconds--much longer than a full turn signal would require. I had to hold it down until the car was completely within the stripes of the adjacent lane or the car would immediately swerve back into the original lane. I tested it many times on a traffic-free road. Might have been a setting; I don't know.
Was super impressed it seemed to over correct and be thoughtful about consequences a few seconds down the road.
Anecdote though.
And there have been at least two incidences that I can recall where Autopilot saved me from a wreck.
I would not choose to go back, and would buy it again without hesitation.
So... yeah it's gonna take a lot of deaths for this to get regulated. It's a shame cuz we already basically know how to regulate this.
Self driving cars will make fatal mistakes but I have no doubt that tesla very soon will be able to be safer than the average driver.
Plus the more autonomous vehicles on the road the more safer it is.
Finally currently traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for 30yo so we aren’t exactly replacing a perfect system
Humans generally do not give their cars haircuts by slamming them under a stopped cargo truck. They do not generally smash straight into stationary emergency vehicles.
We can’t handwave basic safety issues away by saying “in aggregate, they perform better than humans in most conditions.” The basic safety issues get people killed. Leaning on some “average driver” fallacy is a way to ignore issues core to the tech stack.
This is why we put the BRT (big red truck) behind the rescue scene and park it at a 45 degree angle. It weighs 15x as much as a car so it won't move much when a car hits it, and we want the car to bounce off sideways and away from the rescuers (us) when it happens.
we're used to it and we're happy about it and we use it to make decisions (buy house now, move to a new city ...).
Plus in those rare cases that you mentioned at least the same system will be feedback the incident to make sure that this won't happen again in the future... so in a morbid way there is a way to learn from such fatal incidents ... you can't really say that about such incident if the driver was a human.
It's not uncommon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932011_Toyota_vehic...
So even when those cars ram into fire trucks from time to time, it would be better to let them do their thing. Otherwise people will grab the steering wheel, drive drunk, sleepy, angry etc and ram into all kinds of things again.
Currently, there are 6 million car accidents per year in the USA. Almost 100 people die in car accidents every day. So there is a ton of data to make the decision.
This sort of statement keeps being parroted over and over again. As Linus would say, talk is cheap, show me the code; then we can speak.
>So even when those cars ram into fire trucks from time to time [...]
This is just insane, honestly, and if this is the premise that guides the development of these sort of systems I'll be glad to never set foot on one.
The Attorney General of South Dakota was looking at his phone, swerved into the shoulder, killed man and then left the scene. He claimed he thought he hit a deer, even though the victim's head went through the windshield and the victims glasses were later found inside the car.
What consequences did the Attorney General face? Was his licence revoked or suspended? Did he serve any jail time? Did he resign? The answer to all of these is "No." The only result was two misdemeanors and a 500 dollar fine.
So yes, accepting occaisonal inhuman errors from a system that is 10x safer (hypothetical, no current systems have this record) than human drivers may also be insane but it would still be far more sane than the current approach to human drivers.
Take a look at the best possible examples, instead, and try to improve over that, then we're talking.
You cannot be a shitty doctor and bring out an excuse like "Oh, but wait, this guy has lost more patients than me, so I'm fine".
You really don't want to have a race to the bottom where human lives are at stake.
I'm using a high profile example to point out clear issues with how we handle human driver responsibility. If your negligence directly results in you killing someone, you should lose your license to drive.
If we someday reach the point where autonomous driving systems are actually 10x safer than human drivers and those systems still have issues with hitting emergency vehicles, we should absolutely hold those companies responsible for those accidents.
My point is that not holding those companies responsible would be less insane than our current practice of letting clearly negligent drivers continue to drive with minimal consequences after they kill someone.
So instead of being outraged about this hypothetical future, why not be outraged about the insane lack of consequences that drivers face currently?
You (or the Transport Administration) do not have access to the training data, the training parameters or anything at all.
It is just a black-box which we are all to trust because "it works, mostly".
In my book, that goes against any notion of admissibility by a government agency.
E.g. wear your hair in a funny way that's never been trained on? You're a target!
I have been driving for almost two decades with 0 accidents. I'm not saying I can't have a lapse of judgement or do something stupid going forward, but I certainly won't mis-class an object, nor kill myself over it.
I hypothetically want bad drivers to be replaced by AI because it's likely already better. But replacing everyone with AI (at the current generation of AI, which isn't the first, nor the last) will undoubtedly lead to tons of avoidable deaths, and I'm not keen on drawing a lottery ticket for it.