Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

Post by rjdagost » Thu, May 02, 2019, 4:36 AM UTC

studentrob wrote: post #214

rjdagost wrote: post #206

Tesla made some very big claims in their recent autonomy day event- basically, they claimed that they are years ahead of competitors, while operating on "hard" mode (no lidar). And yet, a number of participants in the short autonomy day demo rides claimed that the support driver had to disengage the autopilot. Has Tesla provided any evidence which shows evidence that they are in fact far beyond competitors?

> Has Tesla provided any evidence which shows evidence that they are in fact far beyond competitors? Evidence showing they are ahead in terms of customers? For now, maybe. In terms of safety? No. According to some fans, they sell a product you control. You're allowed to use it anywhere, therefore, they're ahead. According to Tesla, they designed a chip that's best-in-class and they share a small amount of safety data…

Post by marmshallow » Thu, May 02, 2019, 4:45 AM UTC

pbreit wrote: post #217

carlivar wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why Waymo and Cruise and such believe autonomy Level 3 or so is utterly dangerous and have intentionally skipped it entirely.

It’s almost certain they are wrong.

Post by hw » Thu, May 02, 2019, 4:45 AM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #151

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the system is even a few percent better than humans then it would save thousands of lives when widely deployed. Musk has made this argument many times. Basically don't let perfect be the enemy of better. But if the vendor is legally liable in each case then this software is untenable.

Tesla (and/or Musk) keep saying it's safe to let the car drive, and then when you let the car drive and it kills you, they say you're holding it wrong. If you're actually trying to increase safety, the right things to build are computers to supervise the human driver, and not systems that require a human to supervise the computer driver. If the human drifts out of the lane, nudge the car back in and beep, but don't p…

Post by marmshallow » Thu, May 02, 2019, 4:49 AM UTC

lwansbrough wrote: post #182

carlivar wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why Waymo and Cruise and such believe autonomy Level 3 or so is utterly dangerous and have intentionally skipped it entirely.

Telsa's bet, and I think it's a really fair one, is that if humans only need two eyes to navigate as well as we do, a car with >2 eyes could eventually be as good or better than humans. On the other hand, humans do not have lidar systems in their head, and so lidar is the real unproven technology. It's also clear that lidar is especially lacking in situations which require seeing longer distances (like say, driving!)…

Post by semi-extrinsic » Thu, May 02, 2019, 4:52 AM UTC

Simple_Guy wrote: post #216

carlivar wrote: post #58

I know the argument is always that autopilot is not intended by Tesla to be abused (never mind the CEO on national television abusing it). However, there's what you tell humans, and then there's pragmatism regarding human nature. We should consider the latter. It's possible to be both academically correct on the warnings/instructions given and also practically wrong on human psychology.

Your reasoning is that people are stupid and therefore you should manipulate them 'for their own good' because they have no self-agency and self-responsibility. Needless to say, people who think like this make terrible dictators when given the chance.