Even though it logically makes sense, there are some nuances to it, most prominent of which is: When human drivers cause accidents, they are held responsible by the legal system. Who's responsible when your car made the decision? Is it Tesla? Is it the driver? Society is probably not going to accept a small improvement over humans while all the legal burden goes up in the air. It may demand a much higher improvement to compensate.
Any time a Tesla is involved in an accident, it seems like the company is more than happy to throw out reams of log data "proving" that it isn't their fault. But yet at the same time they maintain marketing material claiming their "auto pilot" feature is (or will be) so awesome that the human driver is only there to make the lawyers happy.
Yes, but they need a process in place to insure that that is true, and a process in place that insures that is true with each new update. They are remarkably cagey with statistics about AutoPilot.
Elon claims that Autopilot is currently much safer than human driving, yet the only statistics released are biased comparisons between Autopilot miles, which are almost exclusively on highways, and general auto statistics (where crashes occur most frequently off highways). If Elon really wanted to show the software effectiveness of current Autopilot, he could release the crash statistics of customers who purchased Autopilot and customers who did not, as many people have requested of him. He has thus far refused to.
I was referring to AI that operates independently of a network connection. There are multiple scenarios in which a network connection can become unavailable.
I'm not here to disparage Tesla, I really don't care what company creates self driving cars. Most people are acting like Tesla are the only ones.
https://ww.electrek.co/2019/04/22/tesla-full-self-driving-co...
Says who?
The fact that you state this so confidently demonstrates a lack of understanding of both human nature and politics.
Ehm a recent Tesla has very powerful specialized hardware, developed in-house, which is much more powerful than a commodity home PC with expensive GPUs. You might want to do some basic research before you make such claims...
> The system isn't AI based... It's currently based on static programming
A large neural network is used to make many of the decisions, as well as to run the perception of the sensors/cameras. Unclear what you mean by "AI", but neural networks are usually covered in the "AI" term by researchers and engineers in this field.
> may never be flawlessness enough to make error free updates
It seems that you are new in this argument, because this point has been rebutted so many times in the past, but here goes: it does not have to be flawless, it just has to statistically cause fewer accidents per kilometer/year than what human drivers cause in a similar situation (which is already non-zero, and in some countries actually quite high).