Don't compare cruise control to autopilot. Cruise control only claims to do 10% of the job of driving. Autopilot claims to do all of it. Totally different.
I suspect this is the reason why Autopilot has so much 'success' in the first place. Because people are really scared as hell of it and intervene way before it has to do anything advanced. I suspect this is also part of Musk's calculations in marketing this.
I suggest you call up this guy's wife and give her your reasoning. I'm sure she'll understand. Maybe throw in a comment like "if you want to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs". She'll like that.
You're right, but if it is true Musk and his wife broadcast themselves not looking while using Autopilot then that is way more damning in my book. How mature are these people? How could they not think people would do the same thing.
That's just the thing. A human slows down when they don't feel safe due to poor visibility. I can't imagine a condition that would hide a truck though, if it were that bad (sun glaring straight into eyes) a human would have slowed down.
So the question is, how do you plan to make AI cars attractive enough for everyone to buy so that you can achieve this goal? AI cars won't be 10% safer than me, since I've never been in an accident; so I'm not too interested in paying more for something that won't help me. Perhaps if the government subsidizes AI cars by half I and makes them cheaper than a regular car I may be interested but I don't see that happening. No one is going to buy a more expensive car to reach your altruistic goal.
You're never going to get to those numbers unless automated cars make sense for the individual. No one is going to make a purchase that doesn't make sense for them in the name of saving all these lives. And you have to have almost total adoption to get near to these numbers.
I think the thing that AI design severely lacks compared to a human is the ability to anticipate what might happen given the position of everything 50-100 feet away from the vehicle, and maybe not even on the road. Most people are natural at observing the world and constantly preparing themselves for scenarios that might happen. All AI does is react to what IS happening. An example that came up in a previous discussion is avoiding children playing in the street when you back out of your driveway. An AI car may or may not sense a child in the road at that point in time, but as a person I have a lot more information to work with. I have knowledge of the time of day that it is with respect to my neighbors habits and whether it is a school day etc, and I have a pretty good idea if there will be kids in the road before I even get to my car. I think this kind of awareness of the world plays a huge role in driving and it is vastly underestimated when people compare AI to humans.
Let's be clear here.. As far as the human race is concerned, self driving cars are not a necessity for our survival. They are something we want as a luxury. Maybe back when there was no way for most people to travel safely from the west coast to the east coast, deaths in developing that transportation were more acceptable. This is nothing more than a frivolous want of ours that won't make that much overall difference. Therefore I can't accept people paying with their lives in order to develop this technology.
I think it's disingenuous to compare their safety to an average human driver. They have crossed the line into providing a driving service, they should be as reliable as other driving services such as buses limos and taxis. People who have a livelihood that depends on getting passengers from A to B safely.
In other scenarios, it has been previously reported that tesla sensors have a blind spot that makes them fail to detect anything that would clear the hood of the car.
....along with many people insisting that it was such an unlikely edge case that it would never happen in the real world in a fatal way if memory serves me correctly.
Furthermore, you would see a 'TRUCK CROSSING' warning sign, and then slow down when you see a truck slightly off the road in anticipation that it might cross. An automated car is completely oblivious to all of this.
Just out of interest, does autopilot these days stay on right through to landing? Or do you take the manual controls once you enter controlled airspace and get instructions from a tower?
There should be a prerequisite for zero accidents a human would not get into, and then it should be safer on top of that. If they are advertising that they will replace humans at the wheel then that would involve not getting into accidents a human would anticipate. Tesla is not just selling a car, they are providing a service. When I order a burger at a restaurant, I don't have my expectations set at 'slightly above what I could do at home'. I have my expectations set at 'the best that restaurant can do as a professional food preparation business'. Likewise, if Tesla wants to sell the service of driving I'm not going to be happy with them being better than a human; they had better have the reliability of a professional driver.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't compare cruise control to autopilot. Cruise control only claims to do 10% of the job of driving. Autopilot claims to do all of it. Totally different.
I suspect this is the reason why Autopilot has so much 'success' in the first place. Because people are really scared as hell of it and intervene way before it has to do anything advanced. I suspect this is also part of Musk's calculations in marketing this.
I suggest you call up this guy's wife and give her your reasoning. I'm sure she'll understand. Maybe throw in a comment like "if you want to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs". She'll like that.
If you are putting the tech in a machine that can kill people, then its limits should not ever contribute to killing people.
You're right, but if it is true Musk and his wife broadcast themselves not looking while using Autopilot then that is way more damning in my book. How mature are these people? How could they not think people would do the same thing.
I fail to see what the point of this is if you can't take your eyes off the road. Why even bother implementing it?
That's just the thing. A human slows down when they don't feel safe due to poor visibility. I can't imagine a condition that would hide a truck though, if it were that bad (sun glaring straight into eyes) a human would have slowed down.
Employees leaving after training is a fact of life and a cost of business.
So the question is, how do you plan to make AI cars attractive enough for everyone to buy so that you can achieve this goal? AI cars won't be 10% safer than me, since I've never been in an accident; so I'm not too interested in paying more for something that won't help me. Perhaps if the government subsidizes AI cars by half I and makes them cheaper than a regular car I may be interested but I don't see that happening. No one is going to buy a more expensive car to reach your altruistic goal.
You're never going to get to those numbers unless automated cars make sense for the individual. No one is going to make a purchase that doesn't make sense for them in the name of saving all these lives. And you have to have almost total adoption to get near to these numbers.
I think the thing that AI design severely lacks compared to a human is the ability to anticipate what might happen given the position of everything 50-100 feet away from the vehicle, and maybe not even on the road. Most people are natural at observing the world and constantly preparing themselves for scenarios that might happen. All AI does is react to what IS happening. An example that came up in a previous discussion is avoiding children playing in the street when you back out of your driveway. An AI car may or may not sense a child in the road at that point in time, but as a person I have a lot more information to work with. I have knowledge of the time of day that it is with respect to my neighbors habits and whether it is a school day etc, and I have a pretty good idea if there will be kids in the road before I even get to my car. I think this kind of awareness of the world plays a huge role in driving and it is vastly underestimated when people compare AI to humans.
Cruise control is only controlling the throttle. One pedal. They are still 90% involved with driving the car.
Let's be clear here.. As far as the human race is concerned, self driving cars are not a necessity for our survival. They are something we want as a luxury. Maybe back when there was no way for most people to travel safely from the west coast to the east coast, deaths in developing that transportation were more acceptable. This is nothing more than a frivolous want of ours that won't make that much overall difference. Therefore I can't accept people paying with their lives in order to develop this technology.
Every single major transportation technology we have ever developed has had some number of fatalities during its development.
We also dropped atomic bombs on Japan, it doesn't mean things should be allowed to be like that any more.
I think it's disingenuous to compare their safety to an average human driver. They have crossed the line into providing a driving service, they should be as reliable as other driving services such as buses limos and taxis. People who have a livelihood that depends on getting passengers from A to B safely.
Even still, "We will drive for you until we don't, and in that case fuck you" isn't a very good marketing philosophy.
Sad that someone had to die before a regulator got involved.
Trucks do this all the time. On busy through fares there is just no time for them to clear the trailer. Don't you drive ever?
In other scenarios, it has been previously reported that tesla sensors have a blind spot that makes them fail to detect anything that would clear the hood of the car.
....along with many people insisting that it was such an unlikely edge case that it would never happen in the real world in a fatal way if memory serves me correctly.
Furthermore, you would see a 'TRUCK CROSSING' warning sign, and then slow down when you see a truck slightly off the road in anticipation that it might cross. An automated car is completely oblivious to all of this.
Just out of interest, does autopilot these days stay on right through to landing? Or do you take the manual controls once you enter controlled airspace and get instructions from a tower?
There should be a prerequisite for zero accidents a human would not get into, and then it should be safer on top of that. If they are advertising that they will replace humans at the wheel then that would involve not getting into accidents a human would anticipate. Tesla is not just selling a car, they are providing a service. When I order a burger at a restaurant, I don't have my expectations set at 'slightly above what I could do at home'. I have my expectations set at 'the best that restaurant can do as a professional food preparation business'. Likewise, if Tesla wants to sell the service of driving I'm not going to be happy with them being better than a human; they had better have the reliability of a professional driver.
(so, planes are a bad comparison to make)
On a long range flight, nothing happens in the sky unless in controlled airspace. Certainly not as much as on a highway.
Those are augmenting driving but they are not making the claim to DO IT FOR YOU.