Would you ride in Elon's robotaxi

[rumatt]

Originally Posted by John V

Is your argument that because certain really dangerous things are legal, that other really dangerous things should also be legal? I just want to be sure I understand.

No. My argument is

1. Something being dangerous is not sufficient to declare that it should be illegal. That is a silly argument and anyone making it should be embarrassed.

2. The reality is that it is a judgement call that requires considering the full picture and making a decisions about whether it's good or bad for society overall. The pros and cons of driver assist would be a really interesting discussion if we could manage to get past oversimplied arguments like #1

3. We don't actually even know whether driver assist is a net win or loss to safety. That includes both today ,and wherever today's tech will help us get to in the future. So even if #1 were a valid argument, it's not clear that it applies in this case.

For what it's worth - IMO none of this belongs in a thread about the robotaxi. Driver assist, and full self driving are both interesting but very different debates. My purpose for posting it was that it furthers my belief (based on my experience with the car) the vehicles are many years away from full self driving, despite what Elon is pushing.

[John V]

Thanks.

The reality is someone who is enough of a dipshit to turn around in a moving vehicle and tend to their dog is likely to do that whether or not they have autopilot. The worry I have is that Autopilot encourages this kind of thing.

It's nice that Telsa reminds you to keep your hands on the wheel and pay attention. Because we all know that as long as you tell someone to do something, they will definitely do that thing and not ignore what you told them and do something else. Totally.

[equ]

Originally Posted by John V

Thanks.

The reality is someone who is enough of a dipshit to turn around in a moving vehicle and tend to their dog is likely to do that whether or not they have autopilot. The worry I have is that Autopilot encourages this kind of thing.

It's nice that Telsa reminds you to keep your hands on the wheel and pay attention. Because we all know that as long as you tell someone to do something, they will definitely do that thing and not ignore what you told them and do something else. Totally.

This.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by equ

Autopilot... I'm not absolving the driver of blame but he clearly needs to go after Tesla. You cannot release this as an awesome cutting edge driving aid and then disclaim away with a footnote.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by rumatt

Disagree strongly.

Originally Posted by ZBB

I also disagree.

This is my shocked face.

[rumatt]

Originally Posted by John V

The worry I have is that Autopilot encourages this kind of thing.

Like sports cars encourage speeding?

Why do people single out driver assist as an example that manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to sell things that stupid people can use to kill people? Can someone explain the hypocrisy?

I ask that seriously to you and equ.

[John V]

Originally Posted by rumatt

Like sports cars encourage speeding?

Why do people single out driver assist as an example that manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to sell things that stupid people can use to kill people? Can someone explain the hypocrisy?

I ask that seriously to you and equ.

Sports cars encourage speeding? Any data to support that? The implication here is also that speeding kills people. Any data to support that?

Also, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said Tesla shouldn't be able to sell Autopilot. What they SHOULD do (or, IMO, what they should be forced to do via regulation) is implement features that other manufacturers (like Cadillac) have that require the driver's eyes to be open and looking forward to make it impossible to use the feature while sleeping, or facing the rear of the car, or doing anything other than looking forward and waiting for the system to fuck up. I also think it's monumentally risky and stupid for them to have named it "Autopilot" when it's not supposed to be used as an "Autopilot."

Anecdotally. Our CX-5 has "driver assists." Lane keeping, lane departure warnings, emergency braking. I honestly hate them and have them all turned off because on that vehicle they (really the auto-braking) intervene in ways that honestly make the car more dangerous to drive in certain scenarios. Regardless, they operate in a behind-the-scenes kind of way. If you're in stop and go traffic and someone brakes in front of you while you've looked down to adjust the radio or turned around to smack your kid, the car will brake, or at least it's supposed to. It's not marketed as a "go ahead, sit back and let the car drive, but seriously, pay attention and definitely don't take a nap or bullshit with your friend in the back seat" kind of "Autopilot." There's a difference between "driver aids" and how Autopilot is used.

[equ]

Originally Posted by rumatt

Like sports cars encourage speeding?

Why do people single out driver assist as an example that manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to sell things that stupid people can use to kill people? Can someone explain the hypocrisy?

I ask that seriously to you and equ.

It's pretty clear that each side's beliefs are quite set. I say "belief" intentionally because we are all operating with incomplete information. I can write paragraph after paragraph on human factor design, on involvement, etc. You are a happy Tesla/autopilot customer you will not change your views. The person who caused a major at-fault accident, got multiple reckless tickets and ruined her/his insurance future is less of a happy customer; though they may be thanking their lucky stars for not having killed anyone.

What does cruise control promise? What does it achieve? Correct use of it is well-defined.

What does auto-pilot promise? It eases the burden in some ways, some of them subtle. Is correct use of AP well defined? If it works well 99.9% of the time, if it changes lanes, if it follows traffic, tracks through on curves, knows to slow down most of the time, a normal human would start trusting it more and more, handing off duties further... until.... until the edge case arrives. Is there a clear procedural manual for what to do beyond the "keep your hands on the wheel" disclaimer? "Pilots" have auto-pilot, but they have strict training and procedure on when to rely on it and when not (and rarely they still make mistakes at that very interface).

Anyway, all this fake AI b.s. is so annoying... Over-promised autonomous driving has been my biggest beef with Tesla for years. I respect what they've achieved with the S and the 3 as cars, but Tesla deserves whatever is coming its way with this irresponsibility. Hey, with googly-eyed () American love of technology maybe nothing will come of it... Experiment at the public's expense. Train that neural net.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by rumatt

Like sports cars encourage speeding?

Why do people single out driver assist as an example that manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to sell things that stupid people can use to kill people? Can someone explain the hypocrisy?

I ask that seriously to you and equ.

Originally Posted by clyde

Further, how fucking dare Tesla conduct a "beta test" with slovenly halfwits whose only qualification to "beta test" a system with such significant safety implications on public roads is the ability to pay the price of admission? And then when one of those halfwits uses the system as any moron knows exactly how people will use it, they blame the halfwit in their initial public statement? Okay, that's business and Tesla is as scumbag as any other for profit enterprise. Fuck them, but the Tesla apologists? Fuck them with glowing hot pokers.

That summed it up pretty well over three years ago.

Perhaps JST said it best, though

Originally Posted by JST

Exactly. The way AP has been handled is ludicrous.

Can anyone describe what Tesla's done over the past three years to prevent Autopilot misuse?

[rumatt]

Originally Posted by John V

Sports cars encourage speeding? Any data to support that? The implication here is also that speeding kills people. Any data to support that?

That's exactly my point. I wasn't stating it as fact - I was repeating your statement in an analogous context. Autopilot enables people to look away for some time if the choose to break the law. You stated that your fear is that it *encourages* it. The implication of that that fear being it kills people.

Does autopilot encourage behavior that kills more people than the kind of behavior that sports cars may or may not encourage? I don't know. But we only talk about one and not the other.

I also think it's monumentally risky and stupid for them to have named it "Autopilot" when it's not supposed to be used as an "Autopilot."

Agreed.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by rumatt

I don't know. But we only talk about one and not the other.

Woot! Whataboutism has jumped from politics to cars. God bless America!