Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsko
Why would you think the current crop of insurers do not already skim the cream? I remember many years ago being able to only be the assigned risk pool or paying twice what my car cost every year.
|
Insurers are relegated to clumsy metrics to assess risk such as age, sex, and credit score. If a car is monitoring what it considers ideal behavior based on scenes it's observing and compares to how the driver behaves. This is a much better metric than other proxies for driving risk. Someone often distracted by a phone, or drunk, or tired that has been lucky so far to avoid an accident would not escape the notice of a system monitoring driver attentiveness.
Since most things follow a Pareto distribution, the bottom 20% of drivers probably cause 80% of the accidents. Keep those people out of your insurance pool and you've cut a lot of the risk out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
Listen to , the 28 Dec Freelancer Finance podcast and you'll never buy a car again.
Mark Frohmayer is building a platform for Comma.ai to compete for; and his robovalet (non-crew-rated drone) concept leapfrogs him ahead of Tesla.
|
I'll listen. Hotz says developing for level 5 driving is a mistake and will take a long time to get there. His strategy is do level 2 very well, turn a profit early, and keep liability with the human driver. His claim is that not insisting on driver attentiveness was a huge mistake. It's what programs good behavior in the driver. If the driver is well programmed, the software doesn't have to be 100% perfect.