7 ms·
re. extrapolation: I agree with that, but remember there's sampling error. The crashes/failures go viral but the lives saved get zero exposure or headlines. I d
by angusb 1y ago
re. extrapolation: I agree with that, but remember there's sampling error. The crashes/failures go viral but the lives saved get zero exposure or headlines. I don't think that means you can just ignore issues like this but I think it does mean it's sensible to try to augment the data point of this video with imagining the scenarios where the self driving car performs more safely than the average human driver
- fabian2k 1y agoI absolutely do think that self-driving cars will save many lives in the long run. But I also think it is entirely fair to focus on the big, visible mistakes right now. This is a major failure, failing to observe a stop sign and a parked school bus are critical mistakes. If you can't manage those you're not ready to be on the road without a safety driver yet. There was nothing particularly difficult about this situation, these are the basics you must handle reliably before we even get to alle the tricker situations those cars will encounter in the real world at scale.
- angusb 1y agoI agree it's a major mistake + should get a lot of focus from the FSD team. I'm just unsure whether that directly translates to prohibiting a robotaxi rollout (I'm open to the possibility it should though). I guess the thing I'm trying to reconcile is that even very safe drivers make critical mistakes extremely rarely, so the threshold at which FSD is safer than even the top 10% of human drivers likely includes some nonzero level of critical mistakes. Right now Tesla has several people mining FSD for any place it makes critical mistakes and these are well publicised so I think we get an inflated sense of their commonality. This is speculation, but if true it leaves some possibility of it being significantly safer than the median driver while still allowing for videos like this to proliferate. I do wish Tesla released all stats for interventions/near misses/crashes so we could have a better and non-speculative discussion about this!
- spwa4 1y agoIt should get a lot of focus from the regulator, not "the FSD team".
- ethbr1 1y agoZero systemic, reproducible mistakes is the only acceptable criteria. Do you really want to trust a heartless, profit-motivated corporation with 'better than human is good enough'? What happens when Tesla decides they don't want to invest in additional mistake mitigation, because it's incompatible with their next product release?
- angusb 1y ago> Do you really want to trust... No, but the regulator helps here - they do their own independent evaluation > What happens when Tesla decides... the regulator should pressure them for improvements and suspend licenses for self driving services that don't improve
- ethbr1 1y agoThe regulator doesn't currently exist in a functional capacity. https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/21/elon-musks-doge-comes-for-agency-that-regulates-autonomous-vehicles/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/21/elon-musks-doge-comes-for-...
- locococo 1y agoNo! Ignoring a stop sign is such a basic driving standard that it's an automatic disqualification. A driver that misses a stop sign would not have my kids in their car. They could be the safest driver on the racetrack it does not matter at that point.
- dzhiurgis 1y agoAlso they've repeatedly tested closer and closer distances until Tesla failed aka p-hacking.
- sokoloff 1y agoIn the video (starting at ~13 seconds), the Tesla is at least 16 and probably 20 car lengths from the back of the bus with the bus red flashing lights on the entire time. If the Tesla can't stop for the bus (not the kid) in 12 car lengths, that's not p-hacking, that's Tesla FSD being both unlawful and obviously unsafe.
- reaperducer 1y agoI agree with that, but remember there's sampling error. Ma'am, we're sorry your little girl got splattered all over the road by a billionaire's toy. But, hey, sampling errors happen.