A system that protects 400 people but kills 1 is not a system that I want on public roads because I don't want to be in the 1 - Elon and the children of Elon are basically making the assumption that everyone is okay with this.
The probability of an accident for any driver assistance system will ALWAYS be lower than a human driver - but that doesn't mean the system is safe for use with the general public!
People like me are not advocating for "killing people" because we aren't looking at data - it's that no company has the right to make these tradeoffs without the permission and consent of the public.
Also if this was about safety and not just a bunch of dudes who think they are cool because their Tesla can kinda drive itself, why does "FSD" cost $16,000?
> A system that protects 400 people but kills 1 is not a system that I want on public roads because I don't want to be in the 1 - Elon and the children of Elon are basically making the assumption that everyone is okay with this.
>
> The probability of an accident for any driver assistance system will ALWAYS be lower than a human driver - but that doesn't mean the system is safe for use with the general public!
Totally we should be wary of a system that protects 400 and kills 1. Thank you for providing the numbers. It helps me show my point more clearly.
If you are driving on a road you encounter cars. Each car is a potential accident risk. You probably encounter a few hundred cars after ten or so miles. Not every car crash kills, but lets just assume they all do to make this simpler. For the stat you propose, you are talking about feeling uncomfortable with an accident per mile of something around the ballpark of ten miles.
Now lets look at the data. The data suggests the actual miles per accident is closer to 6,000,000 miles per accident. This is six orders of magnitude diverged from the number of miles per accident that you imply would make you feel uncomfortable.
Lets try shifting that around to a context people are more familiar with: a one dollar purchase would be a soft drink and a six million dollar purchase would be something like buying a house in the bay area. This is a pretty big difference I think. I feel very differently about buying a soft drink versus buying a house in the Bay Area. If someone told me they felt that buying a house was cheap, then gave a proposed price for the house that was more comparable to the cost of buying a soft drink, I might suspect they should check the dataset to get a better estimate of the housing prices, because it might give them a more reasonable estimate.
So I very strongly feel we should cite the numbers we use. For example, I feel like you should really try and back up the use of the 400 to 1 number so I understand why you feel that is a reasonable number, because I do not feel that it is a reasonable number.
> Also if this was about safety and not just a bunch of dudes who think they are cool because their Tesla can kinda drive itself, why does "FSD" cost $16,000?
Uh, we are a on venture capitalist adjacent forum. You obviously know. But... well, the price of FSD is tuned to ensure the company is profitable despite the expense of creating it as is common in capitalist economies with healthy companies seeking to make a profit in exchange for providing value. It is actually pretty common for high effort value creation, like creation of a self-driving car or the performance of surgery, for the prices to be higher.
The probability of an accident for any driver assistance system will ALWAYS be lower than a human driver - but that doesn't mean the system is safe for use with the general public!
People like me are not advocating for "killing people" because we aren't looking at data - it's that no company has the right to make these tradeoffs without the permission and consent of the public.
Also if this was about safety and not just a bunch of dudes who think they are cool because their Tesla can kinda drive itself, why does "FSD" cost $16,000?