←back to thread

410 points jjulius | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
AlchemistCamp ◴[] No.41889077[source]
The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it.

It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable. How about a quarter? Or a tenth? Accidents caused by human drivers are one of the largest causes of injury and death, but they're not newsworthy the way an accident involving automated driving is. It's all too easy to see a potential future where many people die needlessly because technology that could save lives is regulated into a greatly reduced role.

replies(20): >>41889114 #>>41889120 #>>41889122 #>>41889128 #>>41889176 #>>41889205 #>>41889210 #>>41889249 #>>41889307 #>>41889331 #>>41889686 #>>41889898 #>>41890057 #>>41890101 #>>41890451 #>>41893035 #>>41894281 #>>41894476 #>>41895039 #>>41900280 #
iovrthoughtthis ◴[] No.41889114[source]
at least 10x better than a human
replies(1): >>41889127 #
becquerel ◴[] No.41889127[source]
I believe Waymo has already beaten this metric.
replies(1): >>41889189 #
szundi ◴[] No.41889189[source]
Waymo is limited to cities that their engineers has to map and this map maintained.

You cannot put a waymo in a new city before that. With Tesla, what you get is universal.

replies(4): >>41889238 #>>41889466 #>>41894346 #>>41894466 #
1. RivieraKid ◴[] No.41889466{4}[source]
Waymo is robust to removing the map / lidars / radars / cameras or adding inaccuracies to any of these 4 inputs.

(Not sure if this is true for the production system or the one they're still working on.)