Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Of course, they aren't putting essential cargo (or god forbid people) on these higher risk test flights.

A number of Tesla-related deaths can be attributed to Autopilot malfunction. Real people - really dead.



A number of Tesla related non-deaths can be attributed to Autopilot safety features working as promised. Tesla will argue that the number is higher, based on number of crashes per mile statistics. I'm not sure if that's true, but assuming for everyone who died due to an Autopilot failure, someone else survived a human error crash that didn't happen, would that be a good thing? What about if it was, for example, 10 people saved for every 1 killed?


I'm reminded of runaway trolleys.


Different company. This is about SpaceX.


I wasn't talking about Tesla though and I don't know why you assumed I'm pro-fake-Autopilot????


And statistically many more people would have died without AP. But you're correct in that Tesla is using the same playbook on FSD as SpaceX, launch HW (and SW) early and iterate often, and I'd bet they'll save way more lives trying to get to autonomy like SpaceX rather than like NASA (the Waymo approach).


> But you're correct in that Tesla is using the same playbook on FSD as SpaceX

Except Tesla, unlike SpaceX, is willing to put passengers in its test vehicles. The SpaceX approach would be to let a bunch of FSD Teslas crash into things and each other before giving them payloads.


Putting someone in an experimental rocket is quite different from being essentially a safety driver required to pay attention and take over at any time. If you have an accident on FSD is is probably (though not always) your fault for not paying attention.


Tesla is willing to put UNWILLING people in its tests (other road users, pedestrians).


I “unwillingly” have to share the road with people who murder 40,000 people a year with their vehicles. Thankfully we are developing the technology to get these reckless maniacs out of the driver’s seat.


> And statistically many more people would have died without AP.

Citation needed. Not Tesla's "stats" that if the people compiling them completed anything more than high school statistics are intensely misleading.

Comparing a subset of miles driven on the simplest and easiest roads (because the systems can't be used and are turned off) and comparing to accident stats across ALL roads is disingenuous to the extreme, and Tesla continues to tout it.

Short of pulling over, humans don't have the opportunity to say "let's disengage, because it's a bit challenging", and then not have to worry about "counting" any accidents from there forward.


No, they segment between _vehicles_ using AP vs not (still Tesla), not segmenting by miles. https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport


Agreed. It’s like if I unit tested 0.01 percent of my code but ran the unit test 10 million times, with no failures, and claimed it was therefore “statistically” better than code that had been 100% manually tested.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: