Tesla braces for its first trial involving Autopilot fatality::Tesla Inc is set to defend itself for the first time at trial against allegations that failure of its Autopilot driver assistant feature led to death, in what will likely be a major test of Chief Executive Elon Musk’s assertions about the technology.

  • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    Driving a car is not safe. 40000 people die on car crashes every year in the US alone. Nothing in that article indicates that autopilot/FSD is more dangerous than a human driver. Just that they’re flawed systems as is expected. It’s good to keep in mind that 99.99% safety rating means 33000 accidents a year in the US alone.

    • paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Former NHTSA senior safety adviser Missy Cummings, a professor at George Mason University’s College of Engineering and Computing, said the surge in Tesla crashes is troubling.

      “Tesla is having more severe — and fatal — crashes than people in a normal data set,” she said in response to the figures analyzed by The Post.

      This would indicate that FSD is more dangerous than a human driver, would it not?

      • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That still doesn’t tell are those accidents happening more compared to normal cars. If you have good driver assist systems which are able to prevent majority of minor crashes but not the severe ones then the total number of crashes goes down but the kinds that remain are the bad ones.

        • rambaroo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          They are in accidents at higher rates than the normal data set so that’s exactly what it says.

        • rambaroo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s from the Washington Post article linked in the parent comment. Come tf on dude. You look like a douche accusing people of using Twitter as a source when the actual source is literally in the same thread.

          • chakan2@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It was a joke about Twitter users. Of course FSD is more dangerous than a human. It took all 0f 20 minutes for it to try to run a red on Musk.

    • silvercove@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can’t just put something on the streets without first verifying it’s safe and working as intended. This is missing for Autopilot. And the data that’s piling up is showing that Autopilot is deadly.

      • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        First of all what is it that you consider safe? I’m sure you realize that 100% safety rating is just fantasy so what is the acceptable rate of accidents for you?

        Secondly would you mind sharing the data “that’s piling up is showing that Autopilot is deadly” ? Reports of individual incidents is not what I’m asking for because as I stated above; you’re not going to get 100% safety so there’s always going to be individual incidents to talk about.

        You also seem to be talking about FSD beta and autopilot interchangeably thought they’re a different thing. Hope you realize this.

        • silvercove@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are very strict regulations around what is allowed to be in the streets and what isn’t. This is what protects us from sloppy companies releasing unsafe stuff in the streets.

          Driver assist features like the Autopilot are operating in a regulatory grey zone. The regulation has not caught up with technology and this allows companies like Tesla to release unsafe software in the streets, killing people.

          • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly. Driver assist features. These aren’t something to be blindly relied on and everyone knows this and the vehicle will remind you. Every crash is fault of the driver - not the system.

            Now if you don’t mind showing me the data that’s “piling up is showing that Autopilot is deadly”

              • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m still waiting for the data that you said is piling up. You also did not specify what number of accidents you find acceptable for a self driving system. It’s almost like you’re trying to evade my questions…

                • Honytawk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Do you think Tesla would get sued if the data wasn’t piling up?

                • silvercove@lemdro.id
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Give me a breakn The WaPo article is linked above. Also, when it comes to safety, the burden of proof is on those arguing that something is safe.

                  • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    If there’s piles of data it shouldn’t be difficult to prove it’s unsafe.

                    You still haven’t even specified what is considered safe.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Humans my friend. We can hold humans accountable. We can’t hold hunks of semi-sentient sand and nebulous transient configurations of electrons liable of anything. So, it has to be better than humans, which is not. If it isn’t better than humans, then we’ll rather just have a human in control. Because we can argue with and hold the human accountable for their actions and decisions.