Technology

59340 readers

5398 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

432

Tesla braces for its first trial involving Autopilot fatality (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

159 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] silvercove@lemdro.id 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t think there’s any doubt that autopilot puts them to shame with regards to safety

Where are the numbers to back this up?

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Start with the numbers on humans driving drunk, tired, on their phone, while having a conversation, bored or in practically other state and work backwards. Driving is dangerous as fuck and it's pretty much universally accepted that the biggest challenge for autonomous vehicles is humans doing unpredictable and stupid shit

[–] silvercove@lemdro.id 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

that the biggest challenge for autonomous vehicles is humans doing unpredictable and stupid shit

The biggest challenge when I'm driving is humans or AI doing unpredictable and stupid shit.

You still have not given any numbers to back up your claim. While we all expect that AI will one day be much better than humans in driving, there is no data to say that it currently is.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ok so sure there's nothing on Tesla's autopilot, however that's not to say there's nothing on autonomous systems...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8431415/

In 2018 and 2017, 6,735,000 and 6,453,000 traffic crashes occurred in the United States, which resulted in 33,919 and 34,560 deaths, respectively.

https://www.orsa.org.uk/reducing-occupational-road-risk/reducing-driver-error-accidents/

In reality, car crashes aren’t accidents and 94% are due to human error In 2011, British police officers attended 118,404 road traffic collisions (figures from the Department of Transport). In 42% of these crashes, the most frequently reported factor was that the driver ‘failed to look properly’. The second most commonly listed factor for 21% of the crashes was the driver ‘failing to judge the other person’s path or speed’. The third most common contributing factor was the driver being actually ‘careless, reckless or in a hurry’ and this accounted for 16% of the crashes.

There's your stats on humans being reckless and dangerous when driving cars, and of course there's nothing concrete for fully autonomous cars because they aren't legal anywhere, but here's some stats on pretty much every existing driver assist - notably they all prevent accidents compared to just a human driving: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8431415/

It really isn't a stretch from the 3 most frequent crash causes being human error and human assistance tools reducing accident frequency a bunch to say that all these systems coming together (as they cover near enough everything to do with driving a car) would be safer than a human driver, but I don't doubt you'll deny it as you're asking for something impossible to give (as governments haven't allowed full autonomous driving cars yet, so there's no statistics on their use) and so aren't actually looking for information but to confirm your biases and feel like you've "won", despite the fact there's no objectively unsuspicious data on the exact situation you're asking for meaning that you can't prove yourself right either beyond "I'm a little suspicious of this company so I must be right"