Earlier quoted context omitted.
I meant it as an adjective, not as a noun (I'd have added 'a' in front). Is it incorrect?
You'd want "classist" if you mean prejudice against a class
Noted! Thank you.
Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident
521–530 of 581 posts
Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident
#522What is happening was clear to many since the start: Tesla incarnates the behavior of his founder, exaggerating the technology that is really available right now, and selling it as a product without the premise for it to be safe. A product that kinda drives your car but sometimes fails, and requires you to pay attention, is simply a crash that we are waiting to happen. And don't get trapped by the "data driven" analy…
> 1. Ethical. One thing is that you do a stupid thing and die. Another is that a technology fails in trivial circumstances that in theory are avoidable. A doctor can make also errors, but a medical device is required to be very safe and reliable in what it does. This needs elaboration or citation. You're one of the only folks I've seen come straight out and make this point: that somehow a technology or practice that…
It is definitely much safer. However it's unethical to gloss over/coverup/play down the fact that people have died because it failed to drive to car. Both can be true.
Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident
#523To misquote Elon Musk:
The advantage of getting somewhere [without having to steer] will be negatively affected if "but also, you might die" is on the ticket.
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/76e79c/i_am_elon_mus...
Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident
#524Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sentence is just saying that the _hardware_ (not the software) is sufficient for "full self-driving capability". The current _software_ doesn't support that. The point being that in the future the car _could_ get "full self-driving capability" via a software update. In contrast, a car that doesn't have the necessary hardware will never be fully self-driving even if we do develop the necessary software to accompl…
And yet that is quasi criminal (from an ethical pov) that they have worded it that way for 2 reasons: a. When you buy a car why should you even care about that hw/sw distinction, and more importantly do you have the distinction in mind at all time, and are advertisement usually worded that way, stating that maybe the car could become self-driving one day (but without even stating the maybe explicitly, just using tric…
A.) Pretty sure that statement was made to assuage fears that people would be purchasing an expensive asset that rapidly depreciates in value, only to witness it becoming obsolete in a matter of years because its hardware doesn't meet the requirements necessary for full self-driving functionality. Companies like Tesla tout over-the-air patching as a bonus to their product offering. Such a thing is useless if the hardware can't support the new software.
I think I actually sort of disagree with your reasoning in precisely the opposite direction. Specifically, you state the following: "The people operating the car can NOT be considered as perfect flawless robot.".
I agree with that statement 100%. People are not perfect robots with perfect driving skills. Far from it. Automotive accidents are a major cause of death in the United States.
What I disagree with is your takeaway. Your takeaway is that Tesla knows that people aren't perfect drivers, so it is irresponsible to sell people a a device with a feature (autopilot) that people will use incorrectly. Well, if that isn't the definition of a car, I don't know what is. Cars in and of themselves are dangerous and it takes perhaps 5 minutes of city driving to see someone doing something irresponsible with their vehicle. This is why driving and the automotive industry is so heavily (and rightly) regulated.
The knowledge that people are not save drivers, to me, is a strong argument in favor of autopilot and similar features. I suspect, as many people do, that autopilot doesn't compare favorably to a professional driver who is actively engaged in the activity of driving. But this isn't how people drive. To me, the best argument in favor of autopilot is - and I realize this sounds sort of bad - that as imperfect as it may be, its use need only result in fewer accidents, injuries, and deaths, than the human drivers who are otherwise driving unassisted.
Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident
#525Earlier quoted context omitted.
They had a falling out with their software supplier Mobileye which set them back a year or more.
Was it really that much of a setback? It was my understanding they used some of their own software in combination and had already planned to take over the role Mobileye was serving. Maybe I bought too much into their PR spin but it sounded as if it was barely a delay.
From reading owner discussions it seems like the general consensus is that they only just recently reached parity with (and slightly surpassed) their previous Mobileye implementation with their own software/sensor stack.
Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident
#526Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Basically, forcing people to die in one specific way stinks to high heaven Then these people should stop trying to force me to accept a less safe method of transportation, by preventing me from using new technology! Yeah, those people shouldn't be forced to use a self driving care. As they are ALREADY not being forced to do. Nobody is being forced to use the technology. Just don't use it if you don't like it. It is…
Ok, you take the red tape away from silencers and short barreled rifles and I'll take it away from your self driving cars. I'm all for less red tape.
Might help to give the context that suppressors can save target shooters' hearing.
Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident
#527What is happening was clear to many since the start: Tesla incarnates the behavior of his founder, exaggerating the technology that is really available right now, and selling it as a product without the premise for it to be safe. A product that kinda drives your car but sometimes fails, and requires you to pay attention, is simply a crash that we are waiting to happen. And don't get trapped by the "data driven" analy…
A lot of human-driven car accident victims have done nothing wrong at all. Almost every driver thinks they're better than average. Even when it's a stupid person dying from their stupidity, it's still a tragedy. I really think data driven analysys is the way to go. If we can get US car fatalities from 30000 a year to 29000 a year by adopting self-driving cars, that's 1000 lives saved a year. Agree with your point #3.…
>I really think data driven analysys is the way to go. If we can get US car fatalities from 30000 a year to 29000 a year by adopting self-driving cars, that's 1000 lives saved a year.
What this ignores is that self-driving cars will by and large massively reduce the number of 'stupid' drivers dying (the ones who are texting and driving, drinking and driving, or just simply bad drivers) but may cause the death of more 'good' drivers/innocent pedestrians.
So the total number could go down, but the people who are dying instead didn't necessarily do anything deserving of an accident or death.
I say this as someone who believes self driving cars will eventually take over and we need to pass laws allowing a certain percentage of deaths (so that one at case of the software being at fault doesn't cause a company to go under), but undeserved deaths are something people will likely have to deal with somewhere down the line with self driving cars. At the very least, since they're run by software they should never make the same mistake twice, while with humans you see the same deadly mistakes being made every day.
Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident
#528Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's still safer than the average car (at least according to Tesla). This is Tesla's big lie. In all their marketing, Tesla is comparing crash rates of their passenger cars to ALL vehicles, including trucks and motorcycles, which have higher fatality rates. Motorcycles are about 10x-50x more dangerous than cars. Not only that, they aren't controlling for variances in driver demographics - younger and old people hav…
You're complaining about one side using wildly misleading and baseless stats, but then turn around and throw out a completely baseless and fairly absurd claim with no attempt to even back or source it, and then claim that because some cars have 0 fatalities that means something. The truth is somewhere in between Tesla's marketing and your wildly absurd 100x more fatal claim, but its much closer to Tesla than you. Tes…
Technically Tesla cars have an infinite higher death rate than the cars with zero fatalities.
Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident
#529Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like your first two paragraphs are amenable to analysis. Surely there is data out there that splits traffic accident statistics on income, or some proxy for income. Is a Tesla on autopilot more accident-prone than a BMW or Lexus? The numbers as they stand certainly seem to imply "no", but I'd be willing to read a paper. The third paragraph though is just you flinging opinion around. You assert without evidence…
Drunk drivers, recklessly fast drivers, redlight runners, stop sign blowers, high speed tailgaters... those are the demographic you have to compare the Tesla drivers to. Do people who buy Teslas engage in those kinds of dangerous activities?
> Drunk drivers, recklessly fast drivers, redlight runners, stop sign blowers, high speed tailgaters.
Wait, so you are willing to share the road with all those nutjobs, yet you're "staying the hell away from" Teslas you see which you claim are NOT being driven by these people? I think you need to reevaluate your argument. Badly.
That even leaves aside the clear point that a Tesla on autopilot is significantly less likely to make any of those mistakes...
Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident
#530The root problem (as described by Taleb in "Skin In The Game", is: not all statistical probabilities are "ergodic" -- have no risk of Ruin or Extinction.
The problem with saying that "our automatic driving system is much better than the average driver" and thus you should be good with allowing our system to drive, is that you are not exposed -- serially -- to the whims of some average driver. One "average driver" mistake and you're dead. No replays.
Therefore, the compound "odds" are INCOMPUTABLE. Just like being paid $1,000,000 per trigger-pull to play Russian Roulette: you are not earning an average of $833,333.33 per try! On "average", over a pool of random 1-time players, sure. But you? You're guaranteed to be dead in a small number of plays. Non-ergodic and ergodic probabilities are incomparable.
So; since automatic driving systems are non-ergodic, they must be dramatically better (ie. orders of magnitude better) than the "average driver" to be considered viable.
I live in a part of the world where even cruise control is unusable for 6 months of the year. Automatic driving systems? Not even thinkable, except for perhaps a few days of the year, on a few simple portions of a few roads...