3 ms·
Wow. After the introduction where the author thoroughly refutes his own thesis (approximately half a million people would have been saved if the Tesla autopilot
by whack 10y ago
Wow. After the introduction where the author thoroughly refutes his own thesis (approximately half a million people would have been saved if the Tesla autopilot was universally available), the 3 reasons given was astoundingly poor.
Reason 1: Different people will die. Example, blind people who are currently not at risk (because they don't drive) will die in greater numbers.
And this is an argument against saving 500,000 lives every year? Really?
Reason 2: Humans are irrationally afraid of situations where they lose control. Example: flying in airplanes vs driving a car
And we're in favor of 500,000 additional people dying every year, because of people's irrational fears?
Reason 3: The ends don't justify the means. Example: Torture
Even if you accept the underlying premise that the ends don't justify the means, this argument only carries weight in situations where the "means" are considered evil. Like torture. Or robbery. What exactly is "evil" about allowing consumers to voluntarily purchase and use self-driving cars, and saving thousands of lives every year in the process?
I was surprised to see Musk's candid and blunt defense of self-driving cars. It's not PR savvy, but honestly, it's exactly what we need. The reasons being marshaled by people like this author, against self-driving cars, are horrendously bad. And while we sit here twiddling our thumbs, discussing human irrationality while sipping our lattes, hundreds of thousands of people are dying. Maybe it's time we stopped splitting hairs and started doing something.
- krschultz 10y agoI'm not seeing where the author concedes that 500k lives a year would be saved. That number is in an Elon Musk quote, not the authors argument. Keep in mind total US road fatalities in the US is ~32k. I'm not sure how Elon got to 500k, but even if we handed out a free Tesla to every single American, and not a single person was ever killed in a Tesla, it's off by an order of magnitude. Of course Elon is quoting global fatalities, but road fatalities in 2nd & 3rd world countries could be improved with lots of basic infrastructure & existing car technology. It's simply not comparing apples to oranges, before you even start considering the unrealistic cost of a Tesla for those markets. tl;dr; the 500k number is bullshit and any argument based on it is asinine.
- whack 10y agoThat quote was planted in the middle of a section where the author himself was talking about the vast prevalence of car fatalities caused by human error, and how automated driving can help minimize that. Given the context around the quote, the author's decision to include the quote, and the fact that the author made no attempt whatsoever to contest or dispute the quote at all, I see no reason to believe that the author doubts the quote. Regarding the numbers behind the 500k: - there were 1.25 million road deaths globally in 2013 - yes, this can be improved through seatbelts and safety standards, but it can also be improved by self-driving technology. This isn't an either-or problem. Having one doesn't preclude the other. - self-driving cars aren't limited to Teslas. Any car manufacturer can integrate self-driving into their cars. - there's no reason why self-driving technology won't penetrate the market and become mainstream, at some point in this century. This is obviously not going to happen overnight. The more we delay the initial roll out, the longer mainstream penetration will take.