4 ms·

It sounds like peering into the black box of autopilot and anthropomorphising some parts of it but not others. Why not say "autopilot sometimes drives into barr

It sounds like peering into the black box of autopilot and anthropomorphising some parts of it but not others. Why not say "autopilot sometimes drives into barriers and also humans sometimes drive into barriers."? In both cases the driver/autopilot failed for whatever reason.

na85 9y ago
That's disingenuous. The only reason a human drives into that barrier is if they swerve to avoid something or are otherwise not properly paying attention (texting, etc.). There's no good reason for the autopilot to have hit that barrier. The mental gymnastics going on in these comments attempting to absolve Tesla of any responsibility are truly next-level.
- xapata 9y ago
  A swerve is not the only possibility, as the area between lanes looks like a lane. My father has done the same thing while driving at night. He insisted he was in a lane while I yelled repeatedly that he wasn't. Luckily he changed lanes / entered a real lane just before we crashed.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Yes, bad visibility could explain it, but Tesla themselves say it was 9.30am and the autopilot had "five seconds and 150 meters of unobstructed view of the concrete divider".
    - xapata 9y ago
      Looking at a photograph of the barrier, a poorly designed median also explains it.
- swebs 9y ago
  Nobody is trying to absolve Tesla. They're just refuting a dumb and easily rebuked claim that no human driver would make the same mistake. There is evidence that crashes happened there before, and it would be easy to imagine someone crashing there because they were focusing on trying to find a spot to merge while driving in what appeared to be a standard lane. Again, not absolving Tesla, just being realistic about the capabilities of human drivers.
incadenza 9y ago
It's only anthropomorphizing in the sense that we're discussing two systems capable of propelling automobiles around. Presumably, they're both in the business of avoiding concrete barriers. If one system is steering the vehicle into things that the other system would, in most conditions, reliably avoid, it bears some discussion.

na85 9y ago

That's disingenuous. The only reason a human drives into that barrier is if they swerve to avoid something or are otherwise not properly paying attention (texting, etc.). There's no good reason for the autopilot to have hit that barrier. The mental gymnastics going on in these comments attempting to absolve Tesla of any responsibility are truly next-level.

xapata 9y ago
A swerve is not the only possibility, as the area between lanes looks like a lane. My father has done the same thing while driving at night. He insisted he was in a lane while I yelled repeatedly that he wasn't. Luckily he changed lanes / entered a real lane just before we crashed.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Yes, bad visibility could explain it, but Tesla themselves say it was 9.30am and the autopilot had "five seconds and 150 meters of unobstructed view of the concrete divider".
  - xapata 9y ago
    Looking at a photograph of the barrier, a poorly designed median also explains it.
swebs 9y ago
Nobody is trying to absolve Tesla. They're just refuting a dumb and easily rebuked claim that no human driver would make the same mistake. There is evidence that crashes happened there before, and it would be easy to imagine someone crashing there because they were focusing on trying to find a spot to merge while driving in what appeared to be a standard lane. Again, not absolving Tesla, just being realistic about the capabilities of human drivers.

incadenza 9y ago

It's only anthropomorphizing in the sense that we're discussing two systems capable of propelling automobiles around. Presumably, they're both in the business of avoiding concrete barriers. If one system is steering the vehicle into things that the other system would, in most conditions, reliably avoid, it bears some discussion.