FSD Vehicles

Where we talk about modern advancements like the abacus and printing press.
JohnH
Posts: 9510
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2024 5:00 pm
Affiliation: Mennonite Church

Re: Moral Rights for AI

Post by JohnH »

Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2026 10:06 am
JohnH wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2026 9:21 amEveryone thinks they are a “safer driver” (until they have an accident). One problem we will all face is age related decline, and there isn’t anything we can do about it other than stop driving… or get an FSD type of solution. Doing so will save lives.
Seems like this is the kind of thing well designed driving tests could measure. I suspect some people are much safer than others. I imagine some autonomous vehicles, under certain driving conditions, are safer. Have you seen how Waymos drive and how that affects the traffic around them?

At any rate, repeating the same opinions over and over again doesn't really give us the data we need to know. MN is not the place where the answer will become clear. Is anyone saying anything new?

A discussion is not a wrestling match to force other people to agree.
It seems a “driving simulator” could be built which could assess driving skill… the Waymos and Teslas and BYDs could also take the test.

Waymos tend to be safer than the people driving around them and proactively try to avoid accidents. One area they are far safer in is aggressively slowing down / swerving to avoid hitting pedestrians. I don’t really trust Google as a company, but their safety record is stellar.

When someone says “I will never buy a car with FSD”, I think it’s worthwhile asking if that remains true if FSD could save a life.
0 x
JohnH
Posts: 9510
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2024 5:00 pm
Affiliation: Mennonite Church

Re: Red Line: AI is not human

Post by JohnH »

ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2026 9:28 pm Yes, a past driving record for self-driving vehicles doesn't mean they won't have accidents in the future. Statistically, vehicles are quite dangerous, and every single first accident of a vehicle with a new version of the autonomy software is of a software version with a previously flawless record.
Statistically, that self driving vehicle is far less likely to get into an accident than one with a person behind the wheel. They are so far apart that it's hard to even make statistical inferences from Tesla FSD (which is not technically full FSD, although it doesn't require much of the driver other than paying attention) and Waymo because accidents with them are so rare.

I do not understand the level of denial about this. It should seem that part of Christian virtue is not wanting people to die in horrible auto accidents. Things like FSD really help with that.
0 x
Soloist
Posts: 2107
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:24 am
Affiliation: CM Seeker

Re: Red Line: AI is not human

Post by Soloist »

JohnH wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2026 11:24 pm
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2026 9:28 pm Yes, a past driving record for self-driving vehicles doesn't mean they won't have accidents in the future. Statistically, vehicles are quite dangerous, and every single first accident of a vehicle with a new version of the autonomy software is of a software version with a previously flawless record.
Statistically, that self driving vehicle is far less likely to get into an accident than one with a person behind the wheel. They are so far apart that it's hard to even make statistical inferences from Tesla FSD (which is not technically full FSD, although it doesn't require much of the driver other than paying attention) and Waymo because accidents with them are so rare.

I do not understand the level of denial about this. It should seem that part of Christian virtue is not wanting people to die in horrible auto accidents. Things like FSD really help with that.
Wife: it seems like there might be some similarities between this and vaccines. Some people might have ethical reasons, and some might have perceived safety reasons, and I would be uncomfortable judging someone on either side of the fence.

I think you’ve got me somewhat convinced that it would be helpful (particularly some of the safety features like staying in your lane, etc. as long as it allows you to avoid obstacles) although I doubt we’ll be able to afford it anytime soon. On the other hand, I think it would be good for our children to learn how to drive without it so that it can be an aid and not a handicap if they ever have to drive a car that doesn’t have it or it’s not working.
As I said, it’s not like we’re going to get much choice because it’s way out of our price range.
0 x
JohnH
Posts: 9510
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2024 5:00 pm
Affiliation: Mennonite Church

Re: Red Line: AI is not human

Post by JohnH »

Soloist wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2026 12:12 am Wife: it seems like there might be some similarities between this and vaccines. Some people might have ethical reasons, and some might have perceived safety reasons, and I would be uncomfortable judging someone on either side of the fence.

I think you’ve got me somewhat convinced that it would be helpful (particularly some of the safety features like staying in your lane, etc. as long as it allows you to avoid obstacles) although I doubt we’ll be able to afford it anytime soon. On the other hand, I think it would be good for our children to learn how to drive without it so that it can be an aid and not a handicap if they ever have to drive a car that doesn’t have it or it’s not working.
As I said, it’s not like we’re going to get much choice because it’s way out of our price range.
A bit of a difference is that vaccines are a technological change to the natural order of things, and I don't really see much obligation of someone to get one. Driving cars without FSD, on the other hand, isn't exactly the natural order of things and is certainly a choice - particularly for Anabaptists.

My ethical quandary was limited to someone who could choose between, say, buying a Tesla Model Y with FSD or buying a similar new SUV, or choosing between taking a Waymo and an Uber because they live in a place like Phoenix.
0 x
JohnH
Posts: 9510
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2024 5:00 pm
Affiliation: Mennonite Church

Re: Red Line: AI is not human

Post by JohnH »

Bootstrap wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2026 8:43 pm 1. In an accident, who is liable? My wife and I rented a Mach-E for a week because it wasn't much more and we thought it would be fun. We saw the parallel parking feature, and it probably could park better than I can, but I had never used it, and what if something went wrong? Currently, the "driver" of the vehicle is liable pretty much everywhere, unless there's a clear defect in their software, so I would have an accident on my record. I think that's the way it should be, some human needs to bear the responsibility if something goes wrong. Some people suggest the AI should be a legal entity, like corporations are. That idea terrifies me, especially when you think of the scale of disasters that AI could cause, leaving all humans off the hook.
That seems like a bad idea to me, too. Of course, in the case of a Waymo, there's no person operating it - so the owner of the vehicle is liable. Companies can own vehicles, but then they have to maintain insurance and otherwise pay for problems they cause.
2. People don't flourish if they are passive recipients of everything. We need to drive, to steer, to think, to create, to do these things together in fellowship. I do NOT mean to say that everyone should be literally driving - seniors do need to give up the keys sometimes, some people are simply unsafe drivers or have drug problems or alcohol problems or whatever - but we need to have some areas in our life where we are in control, useful, creative.
I would agree and also disagree - specifically, I don't think driving cars is something humans are really all that good at, nor that it was something they were designed to do. Computers are much better at driving cars than people are. (If we look at something that is very, very safe, like air travel, it is that way due to an immense amount of training required of human operators, and a massive amount of computer-based assistance to reduce human error.)
AI companies talk a lot about "human flourishing", where they say they want to give the right answers that lead to people living well. But if there is no place for humans to be the humans, then humans will not flourish. Sometimes they talk about creating a guaranteed minimum income with all the wealth they claim AI will create. So far, they show no eagerness to even pay taxes, but beyond that, I don't think that would be a fulfilling life. What would we do all day to have meaningful lives?
I am waiting for any of the predictions of AI to actually happen. We don't even have better software yet, although I think that may be on the horizon - but for now, software is just getting worse and worse.
0 x
Soloist
Posts: 2107
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:24 am
Affiliation: CM Seeker

Re: Red Line: AI is not human

Post by Soloist »

Wife: maybe this is just my anti-AI/remote controlled car prejudice, but I cannot imagine ever being comfortable getting into a car with no driver outside of trolley systems or the overhead style. I would rather walk. it would be one thing if there was a human to sit there in the car with me and be responsible while the car is on auto pilot, but that just sounds way too creepy. I wouldn’t want to be on a pilotless plane either even if the pilots probably don’t do all that much compared to the old days.
0 x
R7ehr
Posts: 2348
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2024 9:51 pm
Affiliation: C. Mennonite

Re: Red Line: AI is not human

Post by R7ehr »

I found out today that a family memeber had an accident this week. Interstate driving, in GM vehicle with Super Cruise, which he says can basically drive the car. (I am not familiar with Super Cruise). He doesn’t know if it malfunctioned, or if he did; He doesn’t know if he thought it was on, and it wasn’t; or of he turned it on, and it hadn’t quite taken control yet; or if he just human errored and had it of.
At any rate, he does use it frequently on the interstate. Sounds like (he or the FSD) his car left the slow lane to pass a truck by switching to the fast lane, and the interstate turned right. And he wasn’t paying attention, and was saying something to the passenger, and next thing he knew he was in the median going 75 mph, went airborne, and landed 18’ down onto another road that the interstate was going over.

If we assume the AI did not malfunction, one reality could still be that since he frequently used it, it conditioned him to not pay as much attention as he should have.

Insurance can’t get him a rental pickup, because all the rental pickups are being used to fight fires. So he is stuck with and SUV when he needs a truck.
0 x
JohnH
Posts: 9510
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2024 5:00 pm
Affiliation: Mennonite Church

Re: Red Line: AI is not human

Post by JohnH »

GM’s system is widely viewed to not really be capable of autonomous driving to the same degree Tesla FSD is (which isn’t actually fully self driving either). I would not rely on Super Cruise beyond normal cruise control etc type functions.
0 x
Soloist
Posts: 2107
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:24 am
Affiliation: CM Seeker

Re: Red Line: AI is not human

Post by Soloist »

R7ehr wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2026 11:28 pm I found out today that a family memeber had an accident this week. Interstate driving, in GM vehicle with Super Cruise, which he says can basically drive the car. (I am not familiar with Super Cruise). He doesn’t know if it malfunctioned, or if he did; He doesn’t know if he thought it was on, and it wasn’t; or of he turned it on, and it hadn’t quite taken control yet; or if he just human errored and had it of.
At any rate, he does use it frequently on the interstate. Sounds like (he or the FSD) his car left the slow lane to pass a truck by switching to the fast lane, and the interstate turned right. And he wasn’t paying attention, and was saying something to the passenger, and next thing he knew he was in the median going 75 mph, went airborne, and landed 18’ down onto another road that the interstate was going over.

If we assume the AI did not malfunction, one reality could still be that since he frequently used it, it conditioned him to not pay as much attention as he should have.

Insurance can’t get him a rental pickup, because all the rental pickups are being used to fight fires. So he is stuck with and SUV when he needs a truck.
Wife: wow were he or his passenger injured?
0 x
ken_sylvania
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2024 5:41 pm
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Red Line: AI is not human

Post by ken_sylvania »

According to at least one study the Tesla Model Y has a fatal accident rate of 3.7 times the national average of cars, 4.8 times the national average of SUVs. Apparently FSD and driver assist isn't everything some people imagine it to be.

I do not understand the level of denial about this. It should seem that part of Christian virtue is not wanting people to die in horrible auto accidents. Things like [cars with] FSD really help with that [are worse for that].
0 x
Post Reply