But it'll be based on risks introduced by preventable human error- hubris, etc.
All it will take is some viral video of a Tesla running over a child or something terrible like that.
Of course if that fails, perhaps they could use honking as backup sensor.
A new solution that has less problems is worse than an existing solution with more problems.
There's also a willingness to be less upset with humans making a mistake than a machine.
Edit:
Unknown problems may or may not exist so while I think that concern makes sense it doesn't matter until they come up.
I'm making the decision based on the current state. If additional issues come about then you reevaluate if the new solution is better or worse than the existing.
If you consider unknown problems then how can you make a decision?
X+Y > Z?
Where X is the weight of problems for the new solution, Z is the weigh for the existing solution, and Y is a value between 0 and infinity (unknown problems)
Don't disagree, but new solutions can come with unknowns
There's willingness to be upset at anyone with deep pockets who can be found accountable. And the motivations for that aren't emotional, they are purely material.
There's a reason why people have spent decades trying to find pharmacological cause for autism, in spite of the enormous amount of evidence that the condition is mostly hereditary.
And a very good reason why vaccines in America are exempt from the legal system.
Everyone thinks they're above average, even people who know statistics! So if it's merely 20% better than the average driver a huge number of people will conclude "I am above average so I'll do a better job"
Will some of them be wrong? Of course. But tons of them will be right, too.
It can't be statistically significantly better, it has to be statistically overwhelmingly better. Not a part of a standard deviation but several of them.
A self-driving car might be 5x better than me at driving but logically I can't be liable for what it does. The company making it has to be. 5x better would be 0.2 accidents a year. But multiply by that the 100,000 cars the manufacturer has sold... they don't want that liability. That's why Telsa's autopilot is still supervised, because they want its mistakes to be your problem.
It presents a lot of thorny problems. If I am a persistently dangerous driver I can have my license taken away and be taken off the road. But if a self driving car is judged to be too dangerous for the road you'll suddenly have thousands of people who lose access to their car (assuming a future with self-driving only cars) through no fault of their own. What's their path to getting back on the road?
I wonder if that's still the case, and if so how many accidents they've become liable for.
If the self-driving car company takes on that liability it'll save you the $1000/year. So assume they're either going to charge you an extra $10K up front or an extra $1000/year. For that kind of cash they should be quite willing to take on the risk or they can find an insurance company to do so, if their car is actually safer than an average driver.
This should work in most countries. Perhaps not the US with its pattern of massive punitive damage awards.
OP said:
> self driving will be statistically significantly better than human drivers, but because it isn't perfect we won't allow it anyway.
My contention is that it's not that everyone is a luddite, it's that while companies are legally allowed to provide quasi-self driving they have no liability for they will do exactly that. And that is what will hold us back.
2. There's $1000/year of potential revenue they're missing out on by not assuming liability. That's a pretty powerful incentive.
Except, in both cases the risk, statistically, is clearly worth it.
It is the optics that suck.
But humans are easily influenced by perception and narrative, rather than rationality.
There's still no final storage in all of the US, so there's that.
Thinking total risk, end-to-end, including reduction of risks associated with other technologies.
Self driving has a similar issue where the value shrinks the more supervision it requires. Tesla is a new benefit in terms of effort but it can’t operate safely while the driver is asleep.
I think that's by broad policy and not by individual risk mitigation. Isn't it something like "if nuclear is cheaper than the average then it has to spend the difference on risk mitigation"?
3 mile island wasn’t a public health hazard but lack of maintenance cost billions by destroying the reactor. Thus prompting the industry to spend significantly more money on maintaining reactors. The problem is it’s really difficult to determine what’s overkill here.
There’s something like 600,000 US bridges and sometimes people look a failure and say it’s rare enough not to be worth doing anything about.
Personal self-driving cars? Maybe less so because we probably want them to be well maintained.
Tesla-style, camera-only, dual-use (human and computer driven), safety-as-an-afterthought cars? Probably not.
Is the manufacturer liable? Autopilot would be too much risk and the manufacturer would demand users can only activate it behind the wheel, needs both hands on the wheel while getting a coffee infusion. The tool would lose its advantages.
Power plants aren't insurable because it would financially destroy any company in case of a leak or operating costs would become so high, that nuclear cannot compete anymore.
We maybe will get it one day. Waymo probably did it correctly. Limited road network, careful approach, learn what the problems are and expand on that.
Meanwhile, if you have contract with more serious company, you wont have to spend years and thousands fighting them over liability.
>DRIVE PILOT can be activated in heavy traffic jams at a speed of 40 MPH or less on a pre-defined freeway network approved by Mercedes-Benz. DRIVE PILOT operates in daytime lighting conditions when inclement weather is not present and in areas where there is not a construction zone. Please refer to the Operator’s Manual for a full list of conditions required for DRIVE PILOT.
No one is going to regulate it this presidential term though so Tesla has some more time to work I guess.
We already have self-driving cars: look at Waymo, etc. look at chinese ride-hailing companies. What we won't have is private-use self-driving cars: a regular person will not be able to buy one.
While a good amount of functionality exists, the liability model and accidents are big road blocks to seeing this technology truly mainstream, not just select cities/routes/etc
I aspire to be a trillionaire. Does that count for anything?
> While a good amount of functionality exists, the liability model and accidents are big road blocks to seeing this technology truly mainstream, not just select cities/routes/etc
Waymo just started service at SFO airport last month.
What’s your definition of mainstream? Everywhere anytime like an Uber?
I rarely take an Uber or a taxi (probably single digit number of times a year) and, even if it were half the price, that would be unlikely to change my behavior much.
That can change consumer behavior around you dramatically , for example cut car ownership ?
You woound only need local people to grab the truck at a parking spot close by to drive them to the target location.
That alone would help long road truckers to see their familys and not having to sleep in their trucks. It would save costs and would make it saver for everyone if all the trucks drive automatically.
BMW and other EV developers can already drive on a lot of german autobahn hands free.
What i also don't understand, if i really want the benefit of self driving car, I only need it when i'm driving long or when i'm intoxicated. Tbh. let me just record the road from bar to my home, let me drive it for a few times until my car knows that direction and done.
Suppose the accident rate for regular cars were 1 fatality every 100 million miles driven (it actually is in the US).
Suppose further a hypothetical self-driving car has a proven rate of 1 fatality every 1 billion miles (10x better). Except when that fatality happens, it is because the car suddenly incinerates when arriving otherwise safely at its destination. Something about the advanced AI technology makes this outcome completely random and completely unfixable.
Which do you choose? Drive yourself, 10x more dangerous? Or leave it entirely up to chance, but 10x safer?
The rational choice is to pick the self-driving car. Yet I suspect many people (including me, I admit) would choose to drive themselves.
How far apart do those numbers need to be before most people give up the steering wheel?
Our mental suffering is not because car is on autopilot. Suffering happens because WE ARE ON AUTOPILOT. So I chose to trade the 30x risk of death for a 30x reduction in mental suffering. Rational? God I hope not.
Just six more months though...
"Optimus robot is the future of Tesla"
He knows shareholders value your company far more when it's their dreams guiding valuation, rather than what exists in reality.
Moving from mixed hardware to camera-only is only ever likely to result in articles such as the one linked to being written.
No amount of AI bullshit is going to save you from the brick wall that the camera can't see because there is fog etc. in the way.
p.s. i've been a long sceptic of FSD from tesla, but latest changes, really really shows huge progress, even 1 year away and now these are two different worlds.
> ODI has identified six Standing General Order ("SGO") reports in which a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, approached an intersection with a red traffic signal, continued to travel into the intersection against the red light and was subsequently involved in a crash with other motor vehicles in the intersection. Of these incidents, four crashes resulted in one or more reported injuries. At least some of the incidents appeared to involve FSD proceeding into the intersection after coming to a complete stop.
I've experienced this bug on every FSD 13.x version, including the current 13.2.9. When you're the first to pull up to a red light, the car stops and waits, then after a while it sometimes (maybe 1 time in 100 or so) just decides to go even if the light is still red. Horrifying because sitting at a red light doesn't seem like a dangerous situation, but in fact it might be the most dangerous place on FSD right now. Hopefully this forces them to fix it because my colorful language on the voice feedback apparently hasn't convinced them.
Fortunately there was no accident and there were no cops around or apparently traffic cameras. Somehow I think "Sorry, the car broke the red light, not me!" would not have been a compelling thing to say to a cop or a judge.
The only thing I could do was hit the dashcam record button as some sort of proof, but the video itself has no indication FSD was engaged. I suspect I would have to subpoena or forensically extract any data that could exonerate me, which is just not practical if the worst I got was a ticket.
FirmwareBurner•4h ago
The marketing name FSD or Full Self-Driving with (Supervised) in small font and brackets is incredibly misleading.
afavour•4h ago
Regulatory agencies have been toothless towards Tesla for a long time.
dylan604•3h ago