[reitzensteinm]

My main concern is that Tesla will end up poisoning the well in a regulatory sense, and other SDCs that are focused on doing narrow verticals properly will get caught in the crossfire.

The common pro Tesla argument of delaying self driving costing lives is absolutely valid. But it doesn't follow that allowing Tesla FSD to run red lights is the best way to accelerate the adoption as a whole.

If the whole industry was as cautious as Waymo, I think the risk of regulation would be minimal.

This is orthogonal to how well done the system is. I am extremely impressed it works as well as it does. But it's not good enough.

[olliej]

> The common pro Tesla argument of delaying self driving costing lives is absolutely valid.

It would be if self driving Teslas were safer, but the evidence seems to suggest that they crash more often than regular drivers once you control for when it is used.

[zaroth]

Tesla doesn’t have to be safer now to follow this reasoning.

If Tesla’s approach ultimately succeeds in getting FSD working and into the mainstream, then for each year earlier that happens than it otherwise would, up to about 30,000 lives are saved, millions of injuries prevented, and roughly $1 trillion USD in total lifetime value is preserved as the worldwide accident rate goes to zero.

In that context, FSD should absolutely be civilization’s next moonshot.

That’s to say nothing of the other economic benefits besides simply killed and maiming fewer people and destroying less property.

[carlivar]

Interesting idea. But the only problem with it is the assumption Tesla can succeed. I am not sure about that.

The other, darker, possibility is that Tesla does so poorly in this moonshot that they poison the well for everyone else, some of whom might be more equipped to succeed.

[zaroth]

To be clear, I’m not saying they will or won’t succeed! And the converse is true too!

If through their actions FSD is ultimately delayed a year, then they contributed to extended the carnage of human driven automobiles.

The point is the scale of the problem, and how valuable it is to solve it.

[seanhunter]

There are a lot of legs to your hypothetical here. In particular assuming that Tesla's approach ultimately succeeds is a big leap.

If Tesla's approach ultimately turns into a dead end (and that is the outcome of the overwhelming majority of very ambitious tech projects) then all the time and resources spent on Tesla's approach could be seen in hindsight to have been diverted away from potentially fruitful projects and are actually making mainstream FSD happen later than they otherwise would.

FSD being civilization's next moonshot doesn't mean Tesla should necessarily get a free pass to test beta FSD tech out on public roads without scrutiny.

[Tempest1981]

How did you calculate the $1 trillion/year?

What cost would be attributed to Covid, roughly?

[zaroth]

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

That’s just the USA

[torginus]

I find this line of reasoning strange - it's like if we only kind of figured out how to do heart transplants on pigs, and then immediately went full steam ahead operating on people - because otherwise it would've costed the lives of people who didn't receive the operation

[reitzensteinm]

Are you sure you're replying to my line of reasoning?

Because I'm saying just because the goal is extremely worthwhile, it's not carte blanche to move fast and break things.

[whimsicalism]

Really? That seems like a perfectly reasonable line of thinking (except of course, for uncertainty regarding pig transplant).

But lives killed by inaction should be counted!