Part of the problem is the question of who is at fault if an autonomous car crashes. If a human falls for this and crashes, it’s their fault. They are responsible for their damages and the damages caused by their negligence. We expect a human driver to be able to handle any road hazards. If a self driving car crashes who’s fault is it? Tesla? They say their self driving is a beta test so drivers must remain attentive at all times. The human passenger? Most people would expect a self driving car would drive itself. If it crashes, I would expect the people that made the faulty software to be at fault, but they are doing everything they can to shift the blame off of themselves. If a self driving car crashes, they expect the owner to eat the cost.
As soon as we have hard data from real world use and FSD is safer than the average human, it would be unethical to not solve the regulatory and legal issues and apply it on a larger scale to save human lives.
If a human driver causes a crash, the insurance pays. Why shouldn’t they if a computer caused the crash, which drives safer overall, if only by let’s say 10%.
Lets assume that a human driver would fall for it, for sake of argument.
Would that make it a good idea to potentially run over a kid just because a human would have as well, when we have a decent option to do better than human senses?
What makes you assume that a vision based system performs worse than the average human? Or that it can’t be 20 times safer?
I think the main reason to go vision-only is the software complexity of merging mixed sensor data. Radar or Lidar alone also have their limitations.
I wish it was a different company or that Musk would sell Tesla. But I think they are the closest to reaching full autonomy. Let’s see how it goes when FSD launches this year.
Somehow other car companies are managing to merge data from multiple sources fine. Tesla even used to do it, but stopped to shave a few dollars in their costs.
In terms of assuming there would be safety concerns, well this video clearly demonstrates that adding lidar avoids three scenarios, at least two of them realistic. As I said my standard is not “human driver” but safest options as demonstrated.
The road runner thing isn’t far fetched. Teslas have a track record of t-boning semi trucks in overcast conditions, where the sky matches the color of the truck’s container.
You mean a traffic rule? I can’t comment about the US but in Portugal I don’t recall such a rule when learning to drive. Also in Finland I have not experienced that since traffic keeps going even in heavy blizzards.
I am not a fan of Tesla/Elon but are you sure that no human driver would fall for this?
All the other cars he tested stopped just fine.
Part of the problem is the question of who is at fault if an autonomous car crashes. If a human falls for this and crashes, it’s their fault. They are responsible for their damages and the damages caused by their negligence. We expect a human driver to be able to handle any road hazards. If a self driving car crashes who’s fault is it? Tesla? They say their self driving is a beta test so drivers must remain attentive at all times. The human passenger? Most people would expect a self driving car would drive itself. If it crashes, I would expect the people that made the faulty software to be at fault, but they are doing everything they can to shift the blame off of themselves. If a self driving car crashes, they expect the owner to eat the cost.
As soon as we have hard data from real world use and FSD is safer than the average human, it would be unethical to not solve the regulatory and legal issues and apply it on a larger scale to save human lives.
If a human driver causes a crash, the insurance pays. Why shouldn’t they if a computer caused the crash, which drives safer overall, if only by let’s say 10%.
Lets assume that a human driver would fall for it, for sake of argument.
Would that make it a good idea to potentially run over a kid just because a human would have as well, when we have a decent option to do better than human senses?
What makes you assume that a vision based system performs worse than the average human? Or that it can’t be 20 times safer?
I think the main reason to go vision-only is the software complexity of merging mixed sensor data. Radar or Lidar alone also have their limitations.
I wish it was a different company or that Musk would sell Tesla. But I think they are the closest to reaching full autonomy. Let’s see how it goes when FSD launches this year.
Somehow other car companies are managing to merge data from multiple sources fine. Tesla even used to do it, but stopped to shave a few dollars in their costs.
In terms of assuming there would be safety concerns, well this video clearly demonstrates that adding lidar avoids three scenarios, at least two of them realistic. As I said my standard is not “human driver” but safest options as demonstrated.
FSD is launching this year??! Where have I heard that before?
The road runner thing seems a bit far fetched yeah. But there were also tests with heavy rain and fog which were not passed by Tesla.
The road runner thing isn’t far fetched. Teslas have a track record of t-boning semi trucks in overcast conditions, where the sky matches the color of the truck’s container.
Should be fine if the car reduces speed to account for the conditions. Just like a human driver does.
And the Tesla doesn’t, that’s the problem. A human would slow down if they can’t see, the Tesla just barrels through blindly.
FSD is still in development
You said it will be released this year in another comment. Are they solving fundamental problems like that in the next 9 months?
Isnt there a rule if weather very heavy and you cant see you must stop driving immediately
You mean a traffic rule? I can’t comment about the US but in Portugal I don’t recall such a rule when learning to drive. Also in Finland I have not experienced that since traffic keeps going even in heavy blizzards.