Easy, humans prevent nearly 100% of the accidents. A car without a driver invariably crashes in a few seconds.

The question is how many accidents (if any) self driving prevents with respect to average human drivers.

This is such an odd take I don’t know if it’s trolling. Both can be measured against similar metrics (an AV model against the avg AV/avg human or vice versa.

Self-driving cars are used in a very controlled environment.

They will not function in high grass, I guess from my experience with different parktronics.

The best "off road" demonstration of self-driving and/or AI assistance I've found is this: https://media.jaguarlandrover.com/news/2016/07/jaguar-land-r...

Note they avoid going into grass. Human can deduce trails from grass profile, AI? I don't think so.

Will you count an inability to reach a lakeside as an accident? I guess, no.

We have not trained AIs to deduce trails from grass.

AIs need training before they can do things.*

*They just might be learning to do things without being trained based on the emergency behavior I see in LLMs.

My point was not about discerning track from grass, but about driving in acttual grass. Current self-driving tech uses sensors that are useless in high grass.

As for "emergency behavior" (emergent behavior, I guess) - we do not know how LLMs are trained. Thus, what you consider "emergency behavior," could very well be a part of training.

Or even the ones they cause, for the most part. It's notoriously difficult to get clean data about non-fatal crashes.

This Cruise debacle clearly shows it is notoriously difficult to get clean data about crashes caused by or related to self-driving vehicles.