RE: Tesla Full Self Driving: Time For Tea
Discussion
skyrover said:
You can't compare aircraft and car's... massively different requirements.
In the context in which the point was being made you can. The original commenter was unwilling to trust his life to technology. Subsequent commenters made the point that modern aircraft are 100% reliant on technology to fly: the pilot has no physical connection with the flight control surfaces or engines. Regardless of the presence, alertness or competence of the aircrew, if all the flight control software crashed, so would the plane. fblm said:
loafer123 said:
The issue is not whether it crashes, just whether it crashes less than the average driver.
Logically you're right and I agree but... in the UK there are roughly 1000 killed and 20,000 seriously injured on the roads. Take major manufacturers like Ford, VW, BMW all with roughly 10% of the market. Even if their AI's were half as accident prone as us, they are looking at about a 50 deaths and a 1000 serious injuries each! They are going to be up to their eyeballs in law suits for the rest of time.Of course, it is the latter, just as it would be with automated vehicles. The loss rate would be less, the insurance cheaper, and less people would be injured and die.
To us a zero risk approach to anything is idiotic, but to sacrifice thousands of lives on that basis is the very definition of insanity.
loafer123 said:
When someone crashes into you, do you sue them, or claim on their insurance?
As I said I agree with your logic but I think you miss my point. We're talking about a manufacturer signing off on software which they know is going to fail and cause dozens of deaths and thousands of serious injuries, in the UK alone. Who do you sue when your car has a failure that seriously injures you?Unsafe at any speed? I think there will be a perverse situation where AI will need to be way better than us to be accepted despite the obvious systemic benefits of being even slightly better.
fblm said:
loafer123 said:
When someone crashes into you, do you sue them, or claim on their insurance?
As I said I agree with your logic but I think you miss my point. We're talking about a manufacturer signing off on software which they know is going to fail and cause dozens of deaths and thousands of serious injuries, in the UK alone. Who do you sue when your car has a failure that seriously injures you?Unsafe at any speed? I think there will be a perverse situation where AI will need to be way better than us to be accepted despite the obvious systemic benefits of being even slightly better.
fblm said:
loafer123 said:
When someone crashes into you, do you sue them, or claim on their insurance?
As I said I agree with your logic but I think you miss my point. We're talking about a manufacturer signing off on software which they know is going to fail and cause dozens of deaths and thousands of serious injuries, in the UK alone. Who do you sue when your car has a failure that seriously injures you?Unsafe at any speed? I think there will be a perverse situation where AI will need to be way better than us to be accepted despite the obvious systemic benefits of being even slightly better.
Why would the system not change so that the insurance indemnifies the manufacturers as well as/instead of the car owner? Still less risk and less cost and less deaths...
skyrover said:
You can't compare aircraft and car's... massively different requirements.
Pilots have to go through huge amounts of training, are expected to take control at any time, in any condition. They must constantly monitor the on-board systems, follow instructions from air traffic control and the aircraft themselves are rigorously and methodically maintained with multiple backups should a fault occur.
And this is in the sky where there are no pedestrians to run out in front of you, no ambiguous lane markings, no potholes, no dodgy parking, no narrow country lanes and hugely less traffic.
Erm, I think you CAN compare aircraft and cars in the context of this 'driverless/pilotless' topic actually.Pilots have to go through huge amounts of training, are expected to take control at any time, in any condition. They must constantly monitor the on-board systems, follow instructions from air traffic control and the aircraft themselves are rigorously and methodically maintained with multiple backups should a fault occur.
And this is in the sky where there are no pedestrians to run out in front of you, no ambiguous lane markings, no potholes, no dodgy parking, no narrow country lanes and hugely less traffic.
As stated above, pilots have to spend the entire flight monitoring all the automatic systems that are busy flying the plane and take appropriate action if those systems (for whatever reason) fail to do so.
Does anyone here really think autonomous cars are going to be any different? I'm pretty sure that the forthcoming legislation to govern 'driverless' cars will stipulate that someone within the car will be a 'legally designated driver' (as in back-up driver) to carry out the same functions as pilots do with their aircraft - ie. monitoring the car at all times to ensure the vehicle is driving itself correctly and to take action if required.
This kind of rules out getting into a 'driverless' car, switching on, setting co-ordinates for the journey and then personally just 'switching off' to play on an iPad, mobile phone, read a book or indeed turn around to face any passengers in the back seat for a good old chin wag throughout the journey.
Hardly relaxing! Personally, if I'm going to be legally responsible for monitoring such a car in that way for an entire journey then I'd just as well prefer to be driving it. Keep me from nodding off at least - as yes, from my time at Heathrow, I remember BA fitting alarms to aircraft to remind pilots to acknowledge certain time signals periodically on long-haul flights (particularly overnight ones) which became necessary after pilots occasionally failed to check in because they had indeed nodded off due to having nothing to do.
firebird350 said:
Erm, I think you CAN compare aircraft and cars in the context of this 'driverless/pilotless' topic actually.
As stated above, pilots have to spend the entire flight monitoring all the automatic systems that are busy flying the plane and take appropriate action if those systems (for whatever reason) fail to do so.
Does anyone here really think autonomous cars are going to be any different? I'm pretty sure that the forthcoming legislation to govern 'driverless' cars will stipulate that someone within the car will be a 'legally designated driver' (as in back-up driver) to carry out the same functions as pilots do with their aircraft - ie. monitoring the car at all times to ensure the vehicle is driving itself correctly and to take action if required.
This kind of rules out getting into a 'driverless' car, switching on, setting co-ordinates for the journey and then personally just 'switching off' to play on an iPad, mobile phone, read a book or indeed turn around to face any passengers in the back seat for a good old chin wag throughout the journey.
Hardly relaxing! Personally, if I'm going to be legally responsible for monitoring such a car in that way for an entire journey then I'd just as well prefer to be driving it. Keep me from nodding off at least - as yes, from my time at Heathrow, I remember BA fitting alarms to aircraft to remind pilots to acknowledge certain time signals periodically on long-haul flights (particularly overnight ones) which became necessary after pilots occasionally failed to check in because they had indeed nodded off due to having nothing to do.
LOL - Elon announces full self driving, plus a million autonomous taxis by 2020 hype.As stated above, pilots have to spend the entire flight monitoring all the automatic systems that are busy flying the plane and take appropriate action if those systems (for whatever reason) fail to do so.
Does anyone here really think autonomous cars are going to be any different? I'm pretty sure that the forthcoming legislation to govern 'driverless' cars will stipulate that someone within the car will be a 'legally designated driver' (as in back-up driver) to carry out the same functions as pilots do with their aircraft - ie. monitoring the car at all times to ensure the vehicle is driving itself correctly and to take action if required.
This kind of rules out getting into a 'driverless' car, switching on, setting co-ordinates for the journey and then personally just 'switching off' to play on an iPad, mobile phone, read a book or indeed turn around to face any passengers in the back seat for a good old chin wag throughout the journey.
Hardly relaxing! Personally, if I'm going to be legally responsible for monitoring such a car in that way for an entire journey then I'd just as well prefer to be driving it. Keep me from nodding off at least - as yes, from my time at Heathrow, I remember BA fitting alarms to aircraft to remind pilots to acknowledge certain time signals periodically on long-haul flights (particularly overnight ones) which became necessary after pilots occasionally failed to check in because they had indeed nodded off due to having nothing to do.
and today, we get announcements of a loss.
Not too hard to see what is going on is it.
RobDickinson said:
Or opening up mobility to everyone..?
As long as that's what it is.I completely agree, self-driving cars will be great for people like the elderly, people with disabilities etc. and am all for that. However, I still want to drive myself as I enjoy driving (even the commute is enjoyable). The concern here is that everyone will have to use self-driving vehicles as having autonomy mixed with humans will create too much variability and potentially accidents.
As I said, I'm all for everyone being mobile, but I'd like to still control my mobility whilst I am able to. That's not because I don't trust autonomy or computers, but because I still love driving.
loafer123 said:
Why would the system not change so that the insurance indemnifies the manufacturers...
...against releasing a product which they know will ksi thousands of people? Sketchy stuff. I suppose there are parallels with pharma but I don't know how their liability insurance works.The difference is that currently insurance picks up repair and medical costs. Rarely do people sue the driver for damages. If your car crashes you, you'll be claiming repair, medical and damages. IANAL or insurance expert but I'd guess, if not in the UK then the US, that a manufacturer that releases a car that they know with some certainty will KSI x thousand people is going to struggle in front of a class action jury.
I agree that the problem is not irresolvable; once they are as good as humans I don't think it will take long at all for them to be much, much safer and it will be a moot point.
fblm said:
I agree that the problem is not irresolvable; once they are as good as humans I don't think it will take long at all for them to be much, much safer and it will be a moot point.
I think this is where we agree - once it is safer, it will become much safer, and the desire to make it work and save lives will overcome the problems.Distraxi said:
In the context in which the point was being made you can. The original commenter was unwilling to trust his life to technology. Subsequent commenters made the point that modern aircraft are 100% reliant on technology to fly: the pilot has no physical connection with the flight control surfaces or engines. Regardless of the presence, alertness or competence of the aircrew, if all the flight control software crashed, so would the plane.
The original comment was that he had experienced failure in every bit of electronics that he owned, and thus wouldn't trust his life to it. That's important: I don't own the Airbus I use to go on holiday, I just rent a seat. I trust BA to maintain the machine meticulously, ensure that redundant systems are in place, and replace bits of it before they fail using time based maintenance. I also trust BA to put a highly trained pair of pilots on it who can handle pretty much any recoverable emergency and are aware of issues such as crew workload, time taken to acclimatize to a task etc.This is very different in a car, which will be built to the cheapest spec possible, not have particularly redundant systems, and be maintained by the cheapest person the owner can lay their hands on, if at all.
These systems make me very nervous during the adoption phase. When we have "full autonomous level 5, I can be pissed on the back seat" that will be a lot better. But right now we have two issues:
1) The responsibility is blurred in respect of who is in charge. Even amongst the fairly well heeled (and hopefully moderately intelligent) current owners, there are people who just don't get it, and end up stuffing the car into something solid as a result
2) The failure modes are pretty scary - human beings are really, really bad at a huge context switch, and then making critical decisions. This has been proven time and again in aviation. So when you're really not paying attention in your Level 3 or 4 car, and suddenly it decides to return control to you .... you're almost certainly not going to avoid whatever has confused it, because your brain is simply not designed to do so.
Properly reliable Level 5 is really hard to do consistently, and I suspect it is a lot further away than some people think. Comparison with aircraft autopilots is nugatory, it's actually a much simpler problem, and if a child walked out in front of a 'plane at FL30, it would get splatted.
fblm said:
loafer123 said:
The issue is not whether it crashes, just whether it crashes less than the average driver.
Logically you're right and I agree but... in the UK there are roughly 1000 killed and 20,000 seriously injured on the roads. Take major manufacturers like Ford, VW, BMW all with roughly 10% of the market. Even if their AI's were half as accident prone as us, they are looking at about a 50 deaths and a 1000 serious injuries each! They are going to be up to their eyeballs in law suits for the rest of time."They've reduced the death rate by 50%, and will be up to their eyeballs in law suits for the rest of time".
But my question to you is, what happens when humans do the same? We have double the consequences, but spread over more "perpetrators." Maybe if there was such a thing as an umbrella insurance policy, then the focus may return to the scenario's premise of half as many accidents which, I think most would agree, is a good thing.
I'd love an autonomous car that had different modes depending on my mood.
Home James - a calm journey delivering me unruffled to my destination
Police Escort - a serious thrash through the city diving in and out of traffic getting me home in the shortest time
Rally Driver - a white knuckle ride across country delivering me a quivering wreck but full of adrenaline
The only limitation is imagination. Surely AI can learn these?
Home James - a calm journey delivering me unruffled to my destination
Police Escort - a serious thrash through the city diving in and out of traffic getting me home in the shortest time
Rally Driver - a white knuckle ride across country delivering me a quivering wreck but full of adrenaline
The only limitation is imagination. Surely AI can learn these?
fblm said:
loafer123 said:
Why would the system not change so that the insurance indemnifies the manufacturers...
...against releasing a product which they know will ksi thousands of people? Sketchy stuff. I suppose there are parallels with pharma but I don't know how their liability insurance works.The difference is that currently insurance picks up repair and medical costs. Rarely do people sue the driver for damages. If your car crashes you, you'll be claiming repair, medical and damages. IANAL or insurance expert but I'd guess, if not in the UK then the US, that a manufacturer that releases a car that they know with some certainty will KSI x thousand people is going to struggle in front of a class action jury.
I agree that the problem is not irresolvable; once they are as good as humans I don't think it will take long at all for them to be much, much safer and it will be a moot point.
I watched the 3hr tech explanation video yesterday and was blown away with what they have achieved so far. A lot of the posters on here are uninformed at how quickly this system is learning our driving behaviour and predicting and adapting to changes in conditions. The full autonomous hardware is already in the cars now its just a case of updating the software.
Tesla is on course for 1 million teslas on the road by next year with an average of 1,000 miles per car per month that's a billion miles of real-world driving data/footage the AI is learning from. That's the true differentiator, and the reason the traditional car companies are so far behind and the gap will only get bigger.
Other manufacturers are at least 5 years behind Tesla, the Model S came out in 2012 they are only just getting to that level of automation now in 2019!.
Tesla is on course for 1 million teslas on the road by next year with an average of 1,000 miles per car per month that's a billion miles of real-world driving data/footage the AI is learning from. That's the true differentiator, and the reason the traditional car companies are so far behind and the gap will only get bigger.
Other manufacturers are at least 5 years behind Tesla, the Model S came out in 2012 they are only just getting to that level of automation now in 2019!.
thenorth said:
I watched the 3hr tech explanation video yesterday and was blown away with what they have achieved so far. A lot of the posters on here are uninformed at how quickly this system is learning our driving behaviour and predicting and adapting to changes in conditions. The full autonomous hardware is already in the cars now its just a case of updating the software.
Tesla is on course for 1 million teslas on the road by next year with an average of 1,000 miles per car per month that's a billion miles of real-world driving data/footage the AI is learning from. That's the true differentiator, and the reason the traditional car companies are so far behind and the gap will only get bigger.
Other manufacturers are at least 5 years behind Tesla, the Model S came out in 2012 they are only just getting to that level of automation now in 2019!.
Someone fell for it.Tesla is on course for 1 million teslas on the road by next year with an average of 1,000 miles per car per month that's a billion miles of real-world driving data/footage the AI is learning from. That's the true differentiator, and the reason the traditional car companies are so far behind and the gap will only get bigger.
Other manufacturers are at least 5 years behind Tesla, the Model S came out in 2012 they are only just getting to that level of automation now in 2019!.
Tesla will be a technology partner within 5 years. How much do you want to bet?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff