I like the guy who jumps in on the comments with "you're doing it wrong". twitter.com/ButchSurewood/status/148860… Isn't the whole idea that you're not doing anything?

> I get the utilitarian argument that maybe self driving cars could reduce traffic accidents in the future by being better than humans on average. This keeps being touted (by Elon and others), but is a long way away: twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1488673… Tesla uses misleading stats (like not excluding highway miles, which are inherently safer) to try and make it seem like autopilot is any good.

Don't forget to add - willfully misrepresents data to imply a better safety record than they actually do have twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1488673… (I've posted this elsewhere on this thread too)

Tesla's claims of self-driving being more safe was recently debunked: mobile.twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status…...

That article is pretty old. More recent analysis is much more specific as to how the data is flawed, see tweet and associated paper: twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1488673… The primary issue is that the data doesn't adjust for road classification in any way. Highway driving, where autopilot is used, has considerably fewer crashes per mile than city driving. Tesla compared Autopilot's rates against all driving rather than just highway driving which would be the relevant metric. That adjustment alone almost completely eliminates any safety advantage of Autopilot before you get into any of the other adjustments like age.

> Tesla themselves released safety data quarterly for years. The reports they have released have been pretty rudimentary and therefore misleading. I'm glad they released the data when they did and they should keep doing it and expand it to FSD beta with disengagements: twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1488673… > you can find endless videos of user experiences. I said thousands of hours before, but it very well could be hundreds of thousands of hours. I don't really give Tesla all that much credit for allowing their users to publish video of them using the software and hardware that they paid for, especially when they have asked users to consider Tesla's reputation when choosing what to publish. Further, while videos can reveal interesting qualitative information, they are a really bad substitute for the quantitative data that Tesla is already sitting on and choosing not to release. Reports for every AV company that tests in CA (except Tesla): dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-serv…...

I was just watching this video of a Tesla trying and miserably failing to drive itself through the streets of Boston: twitter.com/TaylorOgan/status/148855525… A number of these near-crashes seem to be pretty odd errors (a couple of times it just decided to drive on the wrong side of the street?) -- albeit ones that one _could_ see drivers unfamiliar with the area making. If a human driver started driving on the wrong side of a street, etc -- at least in Boston -- they would be greeted by a chorus of horns and rude gestures from those around, which would hopefully indicate to them that they were in error. Brings up an interesting question: does anyone know if Teslas are monitoring for surrounding horns/etc? Another common problem in Boston is being blocked by geese crossing the road. Are Teslas able to detect such low, slow-moving obstacles? It seems like it's not super feasible to rely on self-driving vehicles in a dense city like Boston, but maybe such features could be geofenced to areas like highways?

Interestingly, the routes in that video are in one of the few parts of Boston with a street grid (Southie: twitter.com/TaylorOgan/status/148855526… ) -- so I wonder how much _worse_ it is on the cowpath roads elsewhere...

> It is worth noting that humans make stupid mistakes like this too Humans generally don't. Only humans that are impaired (drunk/lack of sleep) do this more than "autopilot" in its current state: twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1488673…