6 ms·

On the other hand, if you know that the technology is not completely infallible, but better than humans in a general sense and will save lives by releasing it,

On the other hand, if you know that the technology is not completely infallible, but better than humans in a general sense and will save lives by releasing it, wouldn't you be morally obligated to do so? Wouldn't holding it back even though it would save lives be worse?

dlp211 9y ago
It can't be marginally better than humans, it has to be an order of magnitude or more better. Humans are irrational, and incidents like this erode public trust.
- zip1234 9y ago
  I agree, but there is also news about how Tesla's automatic braking features saved people from getting into collisions. I would think that might counteract some of the negative news. See this one from six months ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndeb1pMAsh4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndeb1pMAsh4
  - mantas 9y ago
    Most manufacturers have automatic braking. But they do not pretend it's "autopilot" nor let user to rely on it. It's just there to save their ass if shit hits the fan.
  - makomk 9y ago
    It shouldn't counteract the negative news because every car manufacturer offers automatic emergency breaking as a feature so it's not a distinguishing benefit of Tesla, it works fine without Tesla's controversial and dangerous Autopilot mode enabled, the main example Elon Musk himself posted of it preventing a collision was in manual mode in conditions totally unsuitable for Autopilot, and the entire industry already agrees that it's a worthwhile safety improvement. I believe it's even going to become mandatory on new cars in the US at some point for safety reasons.
  - carlmr 9y ago
    Apart from this being a very basic feature in almost every (premium) car manufacturer offers, this is a very grave misunderstanding of human psychology. You can never cancel fear with good news. Otherwise we'd be happy about how safe we are today, not worrying about terrorism (in the US that is, there are countries with legitimate elevated terrorism risks that are scary and actually worrisome).
adanto6840 9y ago
It's a tough thing to weigh however when it's perhaps "better than humans" in 98% of situations, but "on par with" or perhaps even "worse than humans" for the remaining 2%. That's where it gets sketchy to me, at least. That said, I'm casually in the market for a Tesla (ideally pre-owned) and one of the features I'd require is the latest auto-pilot hardware. I'd definitely make use of it right away too -- but I'd do so with the understanding that it is far from infallible, and that I still need to keep substantially all of my attention trained to the road just as I would in any other non-autopilot vehicle.
apeace 9y ago
I think your point is void here, because in both of the cases I mentioned, the car was clearly worse than a human. Who drives into a concrete barrier or the middle of a tractor trailer truck? If the technology were better than humans I'd agree.
- greendesk 9y ago
  >>Who drives into a concrete barrier or the middle of a tractor trailer truck? I have seen a drunk driver do exactly that. Someone who falls asleep might also do that. [edit] Come to think of it, I have almost caused an accident a decade ago. I was momentarily distracted as I turned to talk to my passenger. I was able to brake in time, as a car in front of me had suddenly stopped. Nevertheless, it was only a matter of maybe one second to avoid running into the other car. Me-a-decade ago might been in a similar accident.
  - chc 9y ago
    Also somebody who's been blinded by a bright light, or is suffering from a medical event, or is looking at their cell phone. There are lots of things that cause people to hit objects that should be easily avoidable.
  - losteric 9y ago
    I know one person that drove into a light post in the middle of an empty parking lot. Daylight, sober, not texting, not tired, not stunting - they were looking at the exit and simply didn't see the one light post between their car and the exit. "That light came out of nowhere!" Human car accidents are not news because roughly 100 Americans die in car accidents every day, out of ~15300 car accidents per day.
  - yahna 9y ago
    Neither of those people should be using autopilot. It wouldn't save them. I can also avoid being in either of those situations. If autopilot is comparable ot an exhausted or drunk driver why do I want to use it?
- viraptor 9y ago
Dylan16807 9y ago
The bar is not infallible in general, just infallible at driving directly into obstacles. Is it realistic to worry about a car that can't get that right, but is simultaneously safer than a human driver overall?
davrosthedalek 9y ago
I think people will prefer risking being killed by their own mistakes than by the mistakes of an AI, even if that risk is somewhat higher, maybe even considerably higher.
- sol_remmy 9y ago
  Disagree. I will have my family use whichever is statistically safer.
  - davrosthedalek 9y ago
    This might be harder to gauge than you think. Maybe a Tesla is much safer on the highway, but less safe in the city, or the other way around. Or less safe on ice, etc. The averaged risk (and we probably won't have anything else for a while) over the whole population might be quite different from that for your actual use.
- semiel 9y ago
  Surely they can not turn on autopilot, if that's the case? For me, I prefer life over a false sense of control.
- RandomBookmarks 9y ago
  Nope... I am actually happy to admit that I am a below average driver (as driving is sooo boring), and from what I read, the AI is already driving better than me - if used in the conditions it is designed for.
- erobbins 9y ago
  I do. I have no interest in a self driving car. I hate being a passenger in a human driven car too. Give me control of my own destiny!
- dkonofalski 9y ago
  Don't they already have that choice, though? No one is forcing anyone to use Autopilot. That's my main issue with the parent posts and the self-driving sentiments they're expressing - the person using it was grossly negligent and ignored all the warnings presented. You accept that the technology is in beta and that you accept the risks of that. The person ignoring those warnings is, more than likely, much less safer of driver than Autopilot ever could be. I just really don't see how this could be pinned as Tesla's fault. We're treading very closely to territory where we absolve people of personal responsibility simply because we have technology that we can blame, even if it's irrational or misdirected blame.
rohit2412 9y ago
What if Tesla released autopilot as a completely passive accident prevention driving assist? Tesla seems to be allowing only two options - one with no driving assistance, and one where they can call it autonomous.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Emergency braking is still active even if you don't have autopilot turned on. This is also true for a lot of other cars with Level 2 autonomy.
  - rohit2412 9y ago
    The statistics being touted for reduced accident include emergency breaking.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      Yes. I'd like to see AEB broken out of the accident number. Looks like this NTSB investigation did not release such a number.

dlp211 9y ago

It can't be marginally better than humans, it has to be an order of magnitude or more better. Humans are irrational, and incidents like this erode public trust.

zip1234 9y ago
I agree, but there is also news about how Tesla's automatic braking features saved people from getting into collisions. I would think that might counteract some of the negative news. See this one from six months ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndeb1pMAsh4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndeb1pMAsh4
- mantas 9y ago
  Most manufacturers have automatic braking. But they do not pretend it's "autopilot" nor let user to rely on it. It's just there to save their ass if shit hits the fan.
- makomk 9y ago
  It shouldn't counteract the negative news because every car manufacturer offers automatic emergency breaking as a feature so it's not a distinguishing benefit of Tesla, it works fine without Tesla's controversial and dangerous Autopilot mode enabled, the main example Elon Musk himself posted of it preventing a collision was in manual mode in conditions totally unsuitable for Autopilot, and the entire industry already agrees that it's a worthwhile safety improvement. I believe it's even going to become mandatory on new cars in the US at some point for safety reasons.
- carlmr 9y ago
  Apart from this being a very basic feature in almost every (premium) car manufacturer offers, this is a very grave misunderstanding of human psychology. You can never cancel fear with good news. Otherwise we'd be happy about how safe we are today, not worrying about terrorism (in the US that is, there are countries with legitimate elevated terrorism risks that are scary and actually worrisome).

adanto6840 9y ago

It's a tough thing to weigh however when it's perhaps "better than humans" in 98% of situations, but "on par with" or perhaps even "worse than humans" for the remaining 2%. That's where it gets sketchy to me, at least. That said, I'm casually in the market for a Tesla (ideally pre-owned) and one of the features I'd require is the latest auto-pilot hardware. I'd definitely make use of it right away too -- but I'd do so with the understanding that it is far from infallible, and that I still need to keep substantially all of my attention trained to the road just as I would in any other non-autopilot vehicle.

apeace 9y ago

I think your point is void here, because in both of the cases I mentioned, the car was clearly worse than a human. Who drives into a concrete barrier or the middle of a tractor trailer truck? If the technology were better than humans I'd agree.

greendesk 9y ago
>>Who drives into a concrete barrier or the middle of a tractor trailer truck? I have seen a drunk driver do exactly that. Someone who falls asleep might also do that. [edit] Come to think of it, I have almost caused an accident a decade ago. I was momentarily distracted as I turned to talk to my passenger. I was able to brake in time, as a car in front of me had suddenly stopped. Nevertheless, it was only a matter of maybe one second to avoid running into the other car. Me-a-decade ago might been in a similar accident.
- chc 9y ago
  Also somebody who's been blinded by a bright light, or is suffering from a medical event, or is looking at their cell phone. There are lots of things that cause people to hit objects that should be easily avoidable.
- losteric 9y ago
  I know one person that drove into a light post in the middle of an empty parking lot. Daylight, sober, not texting, not tired, not stunting - they were looking at the exit and simply didn't see the one light post between their car and the exit. "That light came out of nowhere!" Human car accidents are not news because roughly 100 Americans die in car accidents every day, out of ~15300 car accidents per day.
- yahna 9y ago
  Neither of those people should be using autopilot. It wouldn't save them. I can also avoid being in either of those situations. If autopilot is comparable ot an exhausted or drunk driver why do I want to use it?
viraptor 9y ago

Dylan16807 9y ago

The bar is not infallible in general, just infallible at driving directly into obstacles. Is it realistic to worry about a car that can't get that right, but is simultaneously safer than a human driver overall?

davrosthedalek 9y ago

I think people will prefer risking being killed by their own mistakes than by the mistakes of an AI, even if that risk is somewhat higher, maybe even considerably higher.

sol_remmy 9y ago
Disagree. I will have my family use whichever is statistically safer.
- davrosthedalek 9y ago
  This might be harder to gauge than you think. Maybe a Tesla is much safer on the highway, but less safe in the city, or the other way around. Or less safe on ice, etc. The averaged risk (and we probably won't have anything else for a while) over the whole population might be quite different from that for your actual use.
semiel 9y ago
Surely they can not turn on autopilot, if that's the case? For me, I prefer life over a false sense of control.
RandomBookmarks 9y ago
Nope... I am actually happy to admit that I am a below average driver (as driving is sooo boring), and from what I read, the AI is already driving better than me - if used in the conditions it is designed for.
erobbins 9y ago
I do. I have no interest in a self driving car. I hate being a passenger in a human driven car too. Give me control of my own destiny!
dkonofalski 9y ago
Don't they already have that choice, though? No one is forcing anyone to use Autopilot. That's my main issue with the parent posts and the self-driving sentiments they're expressing - the person using it was grossly negligent and ignored all the warnings presented. You accept that the technology is in beta and that you accept the risks of that. The person ignoring those warnings is, more than likely, much less safer of driver than Autopilot ever could be. I just really don't see how this could be pinned as Tesla's fault. We're treading very closely to territory where we absolve people of personal responsibility simply because we have technology that we can blame, even if it's irrational or misdirected blame.

rohit2412 9y ago

What if Tesla released autopilot as a completely passive accident prevention driving assist? Tesla seems to be allowing only two options - one with no driving assistance, and one where they can call it autonomous.

greglindahl 9y ago
Emergency braking is still active even if you don't have autopilot turned on. This is also true for a lot of other cars with Level 2 autonomy.
- rohit2412 9y ago
  The statistics being touted for reduced accident include emergency breaking.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    Yes. I'd like to see AEB broken out of the accident number. Looks like this NTSB investigation did not release such a number.