Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Retric | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Retric

In what way?

View on HN

1. Dangerous means causing injury, not just death.

2. How many times has autopilot disengaged and would've caused injury without human intervention?

Sampling bias, confirmation bias.

Did you delete your link to tesladeaths.com because you realized the fine print about sketchy autopilot data contradicted your point? Oops!

No, I was trying to keep the link without a http://, https://www.tesladeaths.com/ or https://www.tesladeaths.com/ works www.tesladeaths.com doesn’t nore does www.tesladeaths.com/

I am sure I have seen comment links without the http:// but might have just gotten so used to it than I stopped seeing it.

uh huh. why do you think it's reasonable to conclude that this system is safe given that the reported data is based on faulty analysis [0] and inexplicably exempt from reporting requirements for testing self-driving cars?

[0] https://jalopnik.com/feds-tesla-autosteer-safety-investigati...

I don’t think it is safe.

I just don’t have data showing it’s terrible.

ok but you think it's reasonable to let them test their unproven software (which has already killed people) on public roads anyway?

Yes, as there is no other way to prove it’s safe. Aka your suggesting an impossible standard for any company to meet.

Further the only reasonable standard is roughly average human competency. As soon as a tired driver can turn on self driving and be safer on the road then banning that technology has a real cost.

of course there is, it's what every other company is doing: safety drivers with reporting requirements

Testing hardware and software via safety drivers on public roads doesn’t actually prove safety in the hands of the general public. Just as FSD being released to the safest drivers first doesn’t prove safety in the hands of the general public.

The general public doesn’t use products like you might assume. For example toilet plungers have killed or seriously injured people and not because they where used as a weapon.

what??? they're not subject user error. that's the whole point, and how many times fallible humans had to take over is exactly what the disengagement report tracks

The platonic ideal self driving system possible doesn’t prevent a tire blowout from poor maintenance etc. Similarly a test fleet isn’t going to replicate the publics actual origins, destinations, and time of day. Something as simple as people going to bars more because the self driving system can get them home would mean a different risk profile.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com