5 ms·

Agreed. This article seems like Tesla propaganda designed to protect their multi-billion dollar investment. I know I'm not going to be one of Tesla's beta user

Agreed. This article seems like Tesla propaganda designed to protect their multi-billion dollar investment. I know I'm not going to be one of Tesla's beta users. Fuck that. Any system that controls the fate of human lives should have several fail-safes. i.e They shouldn't only have one way of detecting objects. Maybe video + sonar + laser. I don't know the details of their architecture but even a Microsoft Kinect could have detected a white trailer against the bright sky using it's infrared + video camera. Gravely disappointed in Tesla and even more for articles like this who don't hold them accountable for inferior technology.

tptacek 10y ago
The author of this piece is a market libertarian generally and an admirer of tech companies specifically. McArdle is not a vector for Tesla propaganda. I disagree with the piece --- as I disagree with almost everything McArdle writes --- but it's useful to get an intellectually coherent perspective from a different worldview than my own. We're very rarely well served by phrases like "this article seems like propaganda".
- icebraining 10y ago
  To the point, here's a previous post by the same author about the topic, and which touches on Level 2 systems like Tesla: "Self-Driving Cars Will Thrive With More Regulation" Level 2 automation is not really a self-driving car, and from the driver’s perspective, sitting there staring at the road and waiting for something to happen is probably worse than just driving the car. Moreover, since people don’t actually pay as much attention as they’re supposed to when using these features, these systems will probably also cause some accidents, even as they prevent others. And another Getting to level-three automation, where the car mostly drives itself most of the time, seems imminent. But the actual advantages of level-three automation over cruise control and early warning systems seem dubious. If people are distracted when the car needs them to take over, then level-three automation could end up being more dangerous than the older systems. And if people aren’t distracted, which is to say they are grimly staring at the road with nothing to do for hours at a stretch, then it seems worse than actually driving the car. http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-01-15/self-driving-cars-will-thrive-with-more-regulation http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-01-15/self-drivi... http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-01/winning-the-driverless-car-wars http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-01/winning-th...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

tptacek 10y ago

The author of this piece is a market libertarian generally and an admirer of tech companies specifically. McArdle is not a vector for Tesla propaganda. I disagree with the piece --- as I disagree with almost everything McArdle writes --- but it's useful to get an intellectually coherent perspective from a different worldview than my own. We're very rarely well served by phrases like "this article seems like propaganda".

icebraining 10y ago
To the point, here's a previous post by the same author about the topic, and which touches on Level 2 systems like Tesla: "Self-Driving Cars Will Thrive With More Regulation" Level 2 automation is not really a self-driving car, and from the driver’s perspective, sitting there staring at the road and waiting for something to happen is probably worse than just driving the car. Moreover, since people don’t actually pay as much attention as they’re supposed to when using these features, these systems will probably also cause some accidents, even as they prevent others. And another Getting to level-three automation, where the car mostly drives itself most of the time, seems imminent. But the actual advantages of level-three automation over cruise control and early warning systems seem dubious. If people are distracted when the car needs them to take over, then level-three automation could end up being more dangerous than the older systems. And if people aren’t distracted, which is to say they are grimly staring at the road with nothing to do for hours at a stretch, then it seems worse than actually driving the car. http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-01-15/self-driving-cars-will-thrive-with-more-regulation http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-01-15/self-drivi... http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-01/winning-the-driverless-car-wars http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-01/winning-th...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]