> It has been assert many times without much actual evidence.
Probably because it is so obviously true surely? Do you really doubt it?
We've already seen Teslas crash due to autopilot failures in ways that definitely wouldn't have happened if people were actually paying attention (e.g. driving into the side of lorries) so there is at least some evidence anyway.
> Probably because it is so obviously true surely? Do you really doubt it?
Yeah. I do doubt it. The question is about if the fall off of attention is larger then fall of of amount incidents. And then how many of those incidents are of a critically where you can not overcome the not paying attention part.
Its not at all clear to me if its a net negative in security, in fact I would suspect the opposite.
> We've already seen Teslas crash due to autopilot failures in ways that definitely wouldn't have happened if people were actually paying attention
Not really. We have seen Tesla crash mostly in situation where they crash all the time already. And that analysis is prove of existence, not prove of significance and net negative security. You need to actually show that this happens MORE often if Autopilot is engaged.
I have seen 100s of videos were Autopilot avoids a vehicle cutting Tesla off for example. In many of those cases even a human driver would not have react so quickly. Most of those cases would not result in death but some could. You need to actually take all of that into account.
Probably because it is so obviously true surely? Do you really doubt it?
We've already seen Teslas crash due to autopilot failures in ways that definitely wouldn't have happened if people were actually paying attention (e.g. driving into the side of lorries) so there is at least some evidence anyway.