4 ms·

This is just the cost of progress. If every imperfect piece of technology didn't ship, we'd have no technology at all.

riffraff 10y ago
not all technologies are created equal. If my macbook's battery dies when it rains, it's not the same as if my car crashes into another one injuring multiple people.
- moron4hire 10y ago
  One might make the argument that the automobile--as originally released without autopilot--is a deeply flawed device and that even this level of "flawed" autopilot is superior.
  - riffraff 10y ago
    the problem here is not that the thing is flawed, is that it's flawed in a radical way that users are not aware of, i.e. > Traffic-aware cruise control may not brake/decelerate for stationary vehicles When you drive a car, you somehow expect to crash into something if you don't pay attention. If you let your autopilot do it, crashing into stationary objects is not something you are prepared for.
    - moron4hire 10y ago
      The point I'm making is that we should not be concerned with making a perfect autopilot, but more importantly, we should not be concerned with making an autopilot that is as good as a human driver in all aspects in which human drivers are good. We should be concerned with making one that reduces injury. If that means that we have more low-speed fender benders--at the cost of zero drunk-driving accidents--I'm all for it.
  - erobbins 10y ago
    That would be a terrible argument, but ok.
dman 10y ago
One mishap which gets a lot of public scrutiny could set the field back by decades. When it comes to products with public safety implications its better to emulate the airline industry and their approach to safety rather than the "move fast and break things" mantra. For an example of how a few catastrophic events can destroy an entire industry / approach forever we just have to look at the nuclear industry with (chernobyl / three mile) and blimps (Hindenberg).
nas 10y ago
That's not much of an argument. There has to be a standard where you consider the new and imperfect technology "good enough". Is Telsa's auto-pilot good enough? I don't know. My perception is that since Telsa is an underdog of the auto industry, they are more willing to take a risk and put the technology out there. If it turns out to be too unsafe, their company will take a huge hit. If not, they gain market share.
fucking_tragedy 10y ago
If your wife or child was injured because of this, would that still be just the cost of progress? Technology can be refined and rigorously tested before it's pushed to consumers and that is still progress.

not all technologies are created equal. If my macbook's battery dies when it rains, it's not the same as if my car crashes into another one injuring multiple people.

moron4hire 10y ago
One might make the argument that the automobile--as originally released without autopilot--is a deeply flawed device and that even this level of "flawed" autopilot is superior.
- riffraff 10y ago
  the problem here is not that the thing is flawed, is that it's flawed in a radical way that users are not aware of, i.e. > Traffic-aware cruise control may not brake/decelerate for stationary vehicles When you drive a car, you somehow expect to crash into something if you don't pay attention. If you let your autopilot do it, crashing into stationary objects is not something you are prepared for.
  - moron4hire 10y ago
    The point I'm making is that we should not be concerned with making a perfect autopilot, but more importantly, we should not be concerned with making an autopilot that is as good as a human driver in all aspects in which human drivers are good. We should be concerned with making one that reduces injury. If that means that we have more low-speed fender benders--at the cost of zero drunk-driving accidents--I'm all for it.
- erobbins 10y ago
  That would be a terrible argument, but ok.

dman 10y ago

One mishap which gets a lot of public scrutiny could set the field back by decades. When it comes to products with public safety implications its better to emulate the airline industry and their approach to safety rather than the "move fast and break things" mantra. For an example of how a few catastrophic events can destroy an entire industry / approach forever we just have to look at the nuclear industry with (chernobyl / three mile) and blimps (Hindenberg).

nas 10y ago

That's not much of an argument. There has to be a standard where you consider the new and imperfect technology "good enough". Is Telsa's auto-pilot good enough? I don't know. My perception is that since Telsa is an underdog of the auto industry, they are more willing to take a risk and put the technology out there. If it turns out to be too unsafe, their company will take a huge hit. If not, they gain market share.

fucking_tragedy 10y ago

If your wife or child was injured because of this, would that still be just the cost of progress? Technology can be refined and rigorously tested before it's pushed to consumers and that is still progress.