16 ms·

Tesla probably shouldn't be saying anything about this at all, even just to avoid giving it more news cycles. But if they were going to say something, here's w

by tc 8y ago

Tesla probably shouldn't be saying anything about this at all, even just to avoid giving it more news cycles. But if they were going to say something, here's what they should have said the first time. ---- We take great care in building our cars to save lives. Forty thousands Americans die on the roads each year. That's a statistic. But even a single death of a Tesla driver or passenger is a tragedy. This has affected everyone on our team deeply, and our hearts go out to the family and friends of Walter Huang. We've recovered data that indicates Autopilot was engaged at the time of the accident. The vehicle drove straight into the barrier. In the five seconds leading up to the crash, neither Autopilot nor the driver took any evasive action. Our engineers are investigating why the car failed to detect or avoid the obstacle. Any lessons we can take from this tragedy will be deployed across our entire fleet of vehicles. Saving other lives is the best we can hope to take away from an event like this. In that same spirit, we would like to remind all Tesla drivers that Autopilot is not a fully-autonomous driving system. It's a tool to help attentive drivers avoid accidents that might have otherwise occurred. Just as with autopilots in aviation, while the tool does reduce workload, it's critical to always stay attentive. The car cannot drive itself. It can help, but you have to do your job. We do realize, however, that a system like Autopilot can lure people into a false sense of security. That's one reason we are hard at work on the problem of fully autonomous driving. It will take a few years, but we look forward to some day making accidents like this a part of history.

mjamesaustin 8y ago
What a stark difference in tone this kind of statement would have made. Tesla's statement reeks of a desire to protect themselves from liability or a potential lawsuit. It's very sad to see them adopting such language in the face of such a tragedy.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Johnny555 8y ago
  What company can afford to embrace a wrongful-death lawsuit? And it's not just this one, it's all the others that they'll suddenly be accepting liability for.
  - mjamesaustin 8y ago
    Not Tesla, but they can afford to pay someone to write a thoughtful and sympathetic response to a tragedy in a way that also protects them from a lawsuit. This sample statement makes it very clear that the user was misusing autopilot and trusting it beyond its intended function, but also shows sympathy for the family's situation.
  - kolpa 8y ago
    Certainly not a company that can't even afford to embrace a 1GB Google maps download over LTE. https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/tesla%E2%80%99s-crazy-response-getting-maps-updates-over-lte-or-service-center-wifi https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/tesla%E2%80%99s-crazy-...
    - sakarisson 8y ago
      They say they can't possibly afford to have cars download the maps at the wifi of service stations, yet they don't see any issue with leeching off Starbucks' free wifi. How anyone could have written that e-mail with a straight face is beyond me.
tshannon 8y ago
See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16814565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16814565 Doesn't your statement admit that Tesla is at least partially at fault? Something their lawyers would probably never allow.
- BeetleB 8y ago
  >Doesn't your statement admit that Tesla is at least partially at fault? Something their lawyers would probably never allow. IANAL so take with a grain of salt. I once talked to a lawyer who used to work for a big hospital and handled the malpractice lawsuits against them. Three takeaways from the discussion: 1. Implying that a possibility exists that the hospital was at fault has no legal ramifications whatsoever. 2. The studies show an apology and admission has a significant impact on the amount paid to the patient if there is a settlement (in favor of the hospital). 3. Despite knowing 1 and 2, he and other lawyers advise their clients to deny wrongdoing all the way to the end.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    Yes, professionals often times equate domain expertise with expertise outside the domain, and don't pay attention to the boundary. e.g., a doctor: "Don't smoke, ever." 'Oh, really? How did you model the benefits to me? By what margin did the costs exceed the benefits?' "There are no benefits to smoking." 'You mean, no health benefits?' "What's the difference?"
  - loceng 8y ago
    Trust is the final layer of competition, trust comes with accountability, taking responsibility. If Tesla et al don't have this fear driving them to do right, then they will lose our respect and our hearts.
  - ScottBurson 8y ago
    Fascinating. Did he explain #3?
lucio 8y ago
So you would start by quoting Stalin...
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  It's not like Stalin never had anything fair/correct/smart to say. Guy had some great quotes. "A sincere diplomat is like dry water or wooden iron." "We think that a powerful and vigorous movement is impossible without differences - 'true conformity' is possible only in the cemetery." "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."
  - theclaw 8y ago
    Whether or not Stalin actually said it, the quote is intended to excuse the murder of thousands - it's carelessly misinterpreted here.
    - otalp 8y ago
      Stalin probably didn't say it and the quote is usually used to highlight how the human brain cannot comprehend the devastation of a hundred deaths while it can easily feel grief for one death.
coralreef 8y ago
The problem with releasing statements like this is they can be used against Tesla in court. Anything that seems like an admission of guilt or responsibility will be used against them, which is why we see so little of it.
cornholio 8y ago
The general sentiment is correct but the wording implies some degree of acceptance of liability: Autopilot was engaged... took no evasive action... engineers are investigating... failed to detect. They should have issued a single, very simple statement that they are investigating the crash and that any resulting improvements would be distributed to all Tesla vehicles, so that such accidents can no longer happen even when drivers are not paying sufficient attention to the road and ignore Autopilot warnings. Then double down on the ideea that Autopilot is already safer than manual driving when properly supervised and that it constantly improves. The specifics of the accident, victim blaming, whether the driver had or not his hands on the wheel or was aware of Autopilot's problems is something that should be discussed by lawyers behind closed doors. And of course, deny it media attention and kill it in preliminary investigation, which I imagine they will have no problem in doing, he drove straight into a steel barrier for God's sake.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mozumder 8y ago
  Doesn't help that fucking Elon Musk and half of Silicon Valley keeps saying AI technology will solve all driving problems, when they should know fully well that autonomous cars are never going to happen without structural changes to roads themselves. Silicon Valley needs to stop trying to make autonomous cars happen.
  - lopmotr 8y ago
    What structural changes? Considering that self-driving cars are already running daily in many cities, those changes must be fairly minor since they've already been implemented in those cities.
    - mozumder 8y ago
      You need those structural changes to make their fatality rates as small as regular cars. Right now self-driving cars aren't viable in the real-world due to their extremely high fatality rate, which are comparable to motorcycles. Meanwhile, there are several car models with ZERO fatalities.
patcheudor 8y ago
>t's a tool to help attentive drivers avoid accidents that might have otherwise occurred. This needs far more discussion. I just don't buy it. I don't believe that you can have a car engaged in auto-drive mode and remain attentive. I think our psychology won't allow it. When driving, I find that I must be engaged and on long trips I don't even enable cruise control because taking the accelerator input away from me is enough to cause my mind to wander. If I'm not in control of the accelerator and steering while simultaneously focused on threats including friendly officers attempting to remind me of the speed limit I space out fairly quickly. In observing how others drive, I don't think I'm alone. It's part of our nature. So then, how is it that you can have a car driving for you while simultaneously being attentive? I believe they are so mutually exclusive as to make it ridiculous to claim that such a thing is possible.
- cdblades 8y ago
  This same thing can be said of auto-pilot in planes. Not saying it invalidates your argument, just that there are pretty wide-reaching consequences to that idea.
  - mrguyorama 8y ago
    Which is why pilots are still in control of the plane while autopilot is active. Even while active, there is still a "pilot flying" and pilots are still responsible for scanning gauges and readouts and verifying the autopilot is doing what they expect. They do not just turn on autopilot and goof off
    - netc 8y ago
      they are expected to remain in control of the plane, not necessarily they do: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pilots-sleep-as-flight-attendant-turns-off-autopilot-on-Bangkok-Delhi-flight/articleshow/19860300.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pilots-sleep-as-fl...
    - Johnny555 8y ago
      Just like Tesla's auto pilot? Drivers are supposed to be "flying", scanning gauges and the road ahead to ensure the autopilot is doing what they expect... I think people that say that "autopilot" is a bad name for this feature don't really understand what an "autopilot" does.
Dwolb 8y ago
Tesla need to stop calling it 'Autopilot'. The name implies drivers don't need to drive and is most likely a big reason drivers are lured into a false sense of security.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  Is there any evidence that the name is the problem?
- DavidAdams 8y ago
  Volvo's messaging is less reckless than Tesla's. They call their similar feature "Pilot assist." It's also always been stricter about trying to make sure the driver is engaged when it's enabled. As a Volvo owner, I'll admit I find it annoying at times, but I think it's also helped drill into me that I shouldn't trust Pilot Asssist not to drive me into a barrier. It's amazing at keeping me in my lane when I'm fiddling with my podcast feed though.
  - eertami 8y ago
    >It's amazing at keeping me in my lane when I'm fiddling with my podcast feed though. I hate to be sanctimonious at people online but this is how people get killed. Is it not illegal to do this where you live? In the UK you'd be half way to losing your license if you got caught touching a phone while driving (and lose it instantly if within the first 2 years of becoming a qualified driver). You just said it yourself, you can't trust it, so don't play with your phone while driving, lane assist or not.
    - Twisell 8y ago
      He didn’t mentioned a phone however... it’s 2018 people that can afford that type of car must have podcast friendly onboard entertainement. Which is as dangerous as radio fiddling but not illegal.
  - brewdad 8y ago
    I have a Volvo as well and it is annoying when the dashboard goes nuts warning of impending doom when experience tells me that the vehicle/obstacle ahead isn't actually an issue. That said, it has saved my bacon at least once at an unfamiliar highway exit in rush hour when traffic went from 40mph to a dead stop almost immediately. Lane assist has also led me to be much better about always signaling lane changes lest the steering try to fight me.
SilasX 8y ago
"And furthermore, here is why we don't see fit to stop using the name Autopilot, even as we recognize that false sense of security it implies to the average person: ..."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- greglindahl 8y ago
  Is there any evidence that this is an actual problem?
  - brewdad 8y ago
    You don't think there's an implied difference between Autopilot vs a name like Driver Assist? Even Co-pilot would be be a better name as it implies an expectation that the driver is still ultimately responsible.
    - greglindahl 8y ago
      I'm asking for data. The data doesn't care what you and I think. And the data will reflect what Tesla drivers think, as opposed to people who've only heard Tesla's marketing. Tesla drivers get reminded about the limitations of the autopilot system each time they enable it.
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        The literally hundreds of posts on HN about it being a problem are data that it is. And that's a tech-savvy crowd that theoretically would know the limitations of the system.
        greglindahl 8y ago
        There are literally hundreds of posts on HN claiming that it's a problem. That's data for it being a commonly-held belief, not data for it being a problem with actual Tesla drivers.
laythea 8y ago
"Saving other lives is the best we can hope to take away from an event like this." I am a bit irked by the arrogance of this statement. The best we can hope for is to ensure the safety of the public. And you, as a company, can be regulated out of business.
- Rychard 8y ago
  "from an event like this" is an important part of the statement. Pretend for a moment that the occurrence of the accident was a foregone conclusion. In such a scenario, the most positive thing that could be done would be to use the information to save the lives of others. There's a smidgen of humility in the phrasing; that the accident might have been avoidable with the information that has been gained as a result of the accident. Of course, I presume that sort of sentiment would fall squarely under the "admission of guilt" umbrella that prevents companies from saying things like this.
- alpos 8y ago
  I think of it this way: Most car manufacturers are releasing their products on the public year after year, knowing full well that a decent percentage of people that drive away from the dealership will be killed by the thing they just bought. Tesla is merely trying to take the next step in reducing that percentage. Their strategy is sound and we so far have not come up with any alternatives that stand a remote chance of improving safety as much as self-driving. Even if they are largely unsuccessful, they are indeed trying to ensure the safety of the public.
  - wott 8y ago
    > Most car manufacturers are releasing their products on the public year after year, knowing full well that a decent percentage of people that drive away from the dealership will be killed by the thing they just bought. Nope, and that's the whole difference. They will be killed by theirs actions, their choices, their inattention, or those of other drivers. They won't be killed by the machine. With autopilot / pseudo-autopilot, they will be killed by the machine. It is a huge difference, both in terms of regulations of people transportation safety, and in terms of human psychology, which makes a big difference between being in control and not being in control of a situation.
WhitneyLand 8y ago
I personally like your style and tone. At a glance I would only replace his first name with Mr. to increase respect and depersonalize it. I think it’d be a tough sell to get the blessing of Tesla’s legal team. Given Musk’s position he could override that of course, but it could still reduce the likelyhood of it going out. Overall as much as I prefer it, I think most companies wouldn’t release something this direct and honest. Although that’s changing at some companies as they find that the goodwill built through lack of bullshit can sometimes outweigh distasteful liability defense techniques.
flokie 8y ago
That news footage in the linked article looks exactly like this scenario: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopilot_barrier_lust_201812/ https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopil... Should a product that flawed really be deployed on an honor system basis?
- alpos 8y ago
  How should one deploy such a product at all? Actual usage is really the only way anyone will know if the models are trained appropriately to handle most/all situations they will encounter in the real world.
  - skgoa 8y ago
    > Actual usage is really the only way anyone will know if the models are trained appropriately to handle most/all situations they will encounter in the real world. Because testing stuff before throwing it on the market isn't a thing anymore?
    - alpos 8y ago
      Surely you do not assume that Tesla had done no testing at all before selling these things. I forewent commenting on their pre-market testing because I assumed that flokie already knew that the cars and ML models they use had been extensively tested on tracks and in simulation before the first Tesla was allowed on California roads. And they would have be complete idiots had they not done such testing, no investors would have funded that. Reactions like flokie's were completely predictable the moment driver assistance techniques were thought of. The only acceptable response a company can have to such criticism is "we have tested this extensively and it is safer than driving manually". Market forces aside, no car drives on roads in any US state without extensive testing and certification. All of the companies testing self-driving technology had to get special permits to do so. Even just a reading of their actual statements offers some insight in to the amount of testing and data collection they are still doing. https://www.tesla.com/blog/what-we-know-about-last-weeks-accident https://www.tesla.com/blog/what-we-know-about-last-weeks-acc... https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week%E2%80%99s-accident https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week%E2%80%99s-accide...
dustingetz 8y ago
Tesla has world-class PR, let's assume they're saying the right thing. What circumstances might they be facing to which this message is a correct response?
rayiner 8y ago
They’re really digging themselves a hole. Can you imagine explaining to a jury that your “autopilot” isn’t “fully-autonomous” and trying to justify that as not misleading by pointing to “autopilots in aviation?”
- Retra 8y ago
  It's called a 'brand name' and people are surrounded by them. I can't eat my Apple MacBook, despite the fact it is misleadingly branded as fruit. Everyone in this thread seems perfectly capable of understanding that 'autopilot' doesn't mean 'fully autonomous', and they got to that understanding through the fairly mundane and routine method of thinking about it.
paulcole 8y ago
Pretty bold to think you could singlehandedly wirte a release for Tesla. Feels like the communications equivalent of Dropbox is a weekend project. Just curious, what’s your writing background?
- fipple 8y ago
  Except... he actually wrote it. It’s like if someone said Dropbox is a weekend project and then it was available for download the next Monday.
  - paulcole 8y ago
    It'd be more like releasing a clone of Dropbox called "Dropbox for Backing Up Files" that made your files public and gave your credit card info to Russian hackers. Sure it might look neat to someone on the outside but it wouldn't take long to see it's nothing like the real thing made by someone who knows what they're doing.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      It matters whether it functions correctly, not whether an expert can tell if it was made by an expert. This statement is fine.
      - paulcole 8y ago
        The statement does not function correctly. Do you honestly believe the statement, as written, aligns with the goals Tesla sets for themselves when releasing a statement? If yes, then how wildly incompetent must Tesla be to release the statement they did. If no, then this statement does not serve the function of a statement released by Tesla.
dosycorp 8y ago
Great copywriting. It seems in part this is a user interface issue in that the limitations of the system are not clearly enough surfaced so people’s expectations are off-base.
st26 8y ago
The car cannot drive itself It seems like Tesla is careful not to dispel the illusion it can. Like how alcohol does not get you women- but all the adverts deftly imply it can, without actually saying it can.
nukeop 8y ago
>Forty thousands Americans die on the roads each year. That's a statistic. But even a single death of a Tesla driver or passenger is a tragedy. I don't know if paraphrasing Joseph Stalin is the right way to go around this

by tc 8y ago

mjamesaustin 8y ago

What a stark difference in tone this kind of statement would have made. Tesla's statement reeks of a desire to protect themselves from liability or a potential lawsuit. It's very sad to see them adopting such language in the face of such a tragedy.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Johnny555 8y ago
What company can afford to embrace a wrongful-death lawsuit? And it's not just this one, it's all the others that they'll suddenly be accepting liability for.
- mjamesaustin 8y ago
  Not Tesla, but they can afford to pay someone to write a thoughtful and sympathetic response to a tragedy in a way that also protects them from a lawsuit. This sample statement makes it very clear that the user was misusing autopilot and trusting it beyond its intended function, but also shows sympathy for the family's situation.
- kolpa 8y ago
  Certainly not a company that can't even afford to embrace a 1GB Google maps download over LTE. https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/tesla%E2%80%99s-crazy-response-getting-maps-updates-over-lte-or-service-center-wifi https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/tesla%E2%80%99s-crazy-...
  - sakarisson 8y ago
    They say they can't possibly afford to have cars download the maps at the wifi of service stations, yet they don't see any issue with leeching off Starbucks' free wifi. How anyone could have written that e-mail with a straight face is beyond me.

tshannon 8y ago

See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16814565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16814565 Doesn't your statement admit that Tesla is at least partially at fault? Something their lawyers would probably never allow.

BeetleB 8y ago
>Doesn't your statement admit that Tesla is at least partially at fault? Something their lawyers would probably never allow. IANAL so take with a grain of salt. I once talked to a lawyer who used to work for a big hospital and handled the malpractice lawsuits against them. Three takeaways from the discussion: 1. Implying that a possibility exists that the hospital was at fault has no legal ramifications whatsoever. 2. The studies show an apology and admission has a significant impact on the amount paid to the patient if there is a settlement (in favor of the hospital). 3. Despite knowing 1 and 2, he and other lawyers advise their clients to deny wrongdoing all the way to the end.
- SilasX 8y ago
  Yes, professionals often times equate domain expertise with expertise outside the domain, and don't pay attention to the boundary. e.g., a doctor: "Don't smoke, ever." 'Oh, really? How did you model the benefits to me? By what margin did the costs exceed the benefits?' "There are no benefits to smoking." 'You mean, no health benefits?' "What's the difference?"
- loceng 8y ago
  Trust is the final layer of competition, trust comes with accountability, taking responsibility. If Tesla et al don't have this fear driving them to do right, then they will lose our respect and our hearts.
- ScottBurson 8y ago
  Fascinating. Did he explain #3?

lucio 8y ago

So you would start by quoting Stalin...

ceejayoz 8y ago
It's not like Stalin never had anything fair/correct/smart to say. Guy had some great quotes. "A sincere diplomat is like dry water or wooden iron." "We think that a powerful and vigorous movement is impossible without differences - 'true conformity' is possible only in the cemetery." "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."
- theclaw 8y ago
  Whether or not Stalin actually said it, the quote is intended to excuse the murder of thousands - it's carelessly misinterpreted here.
  - otalp 8y ago
    Stalin probably didn't say it and the quote is usually used to highlight how the human brain cannot comprehend the devastation of a hundred deaths while it can easily feel grief for one death.

coralreef 8y ago

The problem with releasing statements like this is they can be used against Tesla in court. Anything that seems like an admission of guilt or responsibility will be used against them, which is why we see so little of it.

cornholio 8y ago

The general sentiment is correct but the wording implies some degree of acceptance of liability: Autopilot was engaged... took no evasive action... engineers are investigating... failed to detect. They should have issued a single, very simple statement that they are investigating the crash and that any resulting improvements would be distributed to all Tesla vehicles, so that such accidents can no longer happen even when drivers are not paying sufficient attention to the road and ignore Autopilot warnings. Then double down on the ideea that Autopilot is already safer than manual driving when properly supervised and that it constantly improves. The specifics of the accident, victim blaming, whether the driver had or not his hands on the wheel or was aware of Autopilot's problems is something that should be discussed by lawyers behind closed doors. And of course, deny it media attention and kill it in preliminary investigation, which I imagine they will have no problem in doing, he drove straight into a steel barrier for God's sake.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mozumder 8y ago
Doesn't help that fucking Elon Musk and half of Silicon Valley keeps saying AI technology will solve all driving problems, when they should know fully well that autonomous cars are never going to happen without structural changes to roads themselves. Silicon Valley needs to stop trying to make autonomous cars happen.
- lopmotr 8y ago
  What structural changes? Considering that self-driving cars are already running daily in many cities, those changes must be fairly minor since they've already been implemented in those cities.
  - mozumder 8y ago
    You need those structural changes to make their fatality rates as small as regular cars. Right now self-driving cars aren't viable in the real-world due to their extremely high fatality rate, which are comparable to motorcycles. Meanwhile, there are several car models with ZERO fatalities.

patcheudor 8y ago

>t's a tool to help attentive drivers avoid accidents that might have otherwise occurred. This needs far more discussion. I just don't buy it. I don't believe that you can have a car engaged in auto-drive mode and remain attentive. I think our psychology won't allow it. When driving, I find that I must be engaged and on long trips I don't even enable cruise control because taking the accelerator input away from me is enough to cause my mind to wander. If I'm not in control of the accelerator and steering while simultaneously focused on threats including friendly officers attempting to remind me of the speed limit I space out fairly quickly. In observing how others drive, I don't think I'm alone. It's part of our nature. So then, how is it that you can have a car driving for you while simultaneously being attentive? I believe they are so mutually exclusive as to make it ridiculous to claim that such a thing is possible.

cdblades 8y ago
This same thing can be said of auto-pilot in planes. Not saying it invalidates your argument, just that there are pretty wide-reaching consequences to that idea.
- mrguyorama 8y ago
  Which is why pilots are still in control of the plane while autopilot is active. Even while active, there is still a "pilot flying" and pilots are still responsible for scanning gauges and readouts and verifying the autopilot is doing what they expect. They do not just turn on autopilot and goof off
  - netc 8y ago
    they are expected to remain in control of the plane, not necessarily they do: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pilots-sleep-as-flight-attendant-turns-off-autopilot-on-Bangkok-Delhi-flight/articleshow/19860300.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pilots-sleep-as-fl...
  - Johnny555 8y ago
    Just like Tesla's auto pilot? Drivers are supposed to be "flying", scanning gauges and the road ahead to ensure the autopilot is doing what they expect... I think people that say that "autopilot" is a bad name for this feature don't really understand what an "autopilot" does.

Dwolb 8y ago

Tesla need to stop calling it 'Autopilot'. The name implies drivers don't need to drive and is most likely a big reason drivers are lured into a false sense of security.

greglindahl 8y ago
Is there any evidence that the name is the problem?
DavidAdams 8y ago
Volvo's messaging is less reckless than Tesla's. They call their similar feature "Pilot assist." It's also always been stricter about trying to make sure the driver is engaged when it's enabled. As a Volvo owner, I'll admit I find it annoying at times, but I think it's also helped drill into me that I shouldn't trust Pilot Asssist not to drive me into a barrier. It's amazing at keeping me in my lane when I'm fiddling with my podcast feed though.
- eertami 8y ago
  >It's amazing at keeping me in my lane when I'm fiddling with my podcast feed though. I hate to be sanctimonious at people online but this is how people get killed. Is it not illegal to do this where you live? In the UK you'd be half way to losing your license if you got caught touching a phone while driving (and lose it instantly if within the first 2 years of becoming a qualified driver). You just said it yourself, you can't trust it, so don't play with your phone while driving, lane assist or not.
  - Twisell 8y ago
    He didn’t mentioned a phone however... it’s 2018 people that can afford that type of car must have podcast friendly onboard entertainement. Which is as dangerous as radio fiddling but not illegal.
- brewdad 8y ago
  I have a Volvo as well and it is annoying when the dashboard goes nuts warning of impending doom when experience tells me that the vehicle/obstacle ahead isn't actually an issue. That said, it has saved my bacon at least once at an unfamiliar highway exit in rush hour when traffic went from 40mph to a dead stop almost immediately. Lane assist has also led me to be much better about always signaling lane changes lest the steering try to fight me.

SilasX 8y ago

"And furthermore, here is why we don't see fit to stop using the name Autopilot, even as we recognize that false sense of security it implies to the average person: ..."

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
greglindahl 8y ago
Is there any evidence that this is an actual problem?
- brewdad 8y ago
  You don't think there's an implied difference between Autopilot vs a name like Driver Assist? Even Co-pilot would be be a better name as it implies an expectation that the driver is still ultimately responsible.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    I'm asking for data. The data doesn't care what you and I think. And the data will reflect what Tesla drivers think, as opposed to people who've only heard Tesla's marketing. Tesla drivers get reminded about the limitations of the autopilot system each time they enable it.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      The literally hundreds of posts on HN about it being a problem are data that it is. And that's a tech-savvy crowd that theoretically would know the limitations of the system.
      - greglindahl 8y ago
        There are literally hundreds of posts on HN claiming that it's a problem. That's data for it being a commonly-held belief, not data for it being a problem with actual Tesla drivers.

laythea 8y ago

"Saving other lives is the best we can hope to take away from an event like this." I am a bit irked by the arrogance of this statement. The best we can hope for is to ensure the safety of the public. And you, as a company, can be regulated out of business.

Rychard 8y ago
"from an event like this" is an important part of the statement. Pretend for a moment that the occurrence of the accident was a foregone conclusion. In such a scenario, the most positive thing that could be done would be to use the information to save the lives of others. There's a smidgen of humility in the phrasing; that the accident might have been avoidable with the information that has been gained as a result of the accident. Of course, I presume that sort of sentiment would fall squarely under the "admission of guilt" umbrella that prevents companies from saying things like this.
alpos 8y ago
I think of it this way: Most car manufacturers are releasing their products on the public year after year, knowing full well that a decent percentage of people that drive away from the dealership will be killed by the thing they just bought. Tesla is merely trying to take the next step in reducing that percentage. Their strategy is sound and we so far have not come up with any alternatives that stand a remote chance of improving safety as much as self-driving. Even if they are largely unsuccessful, they are indeed trying to ensure the safety of the public.
- wott 8y ago
  > Most car manufacturers are releasing their products on the public year after year, knowing full well that a decent percentage of people that drive away from the dealership will be killed by the thing they just bought. Nope, and that's the whole difference. They will be killed by theirs actions, their choices, their inattention, or those of other drivers. They won't be killed by the machine. With autopilot / pseudo-autopilot, they will be killed by the machine. It is a huge difference, both in terms of regulations of people transportation safety, and in terms of human psychology, which makes a big difference between being in control and not being in control of a situation.

WhitneyLand 8y ago

I personally like your style and tone. At a glance I would only replace his first name with Mr. to increase respect and depersonalize it. I think it’d be a tough sell to get the blessing of Tesla’s legal team. Given Musk’s position he could override that of course, but it could still reduce the likelyhood of it going out. Overall as much as I prefer it, I think most companies wouldn’t release something this direct and honest. Although that’s changing at some companies as they find that the goodwill built through lack of bullshit can sometimes outweigh distasteful liability defense techniques.

flokie 8y ago

That news footage in the linked article looks exactly like this scenario: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopilot_barrier_lust_201812/ https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopil... Should a product that flawed really be deployed on an honor system basis?

alpos 8y ago
How should one deploy such a product at all? Actual usage is really the only way anyone will know if the models are trained appropriately to handle most/all situations they will encounter in the real world.
- skgoa 8y ago
  > Actual usage is really the only way anyone will know if the models are trained appropriately to handle most/all situations they will encounter in the real world. Because testing stuff before throwing it on the market isn't a thing anymore?
  - alpos 8y ago
    Surely you do not assume that Tesla had done no testing at all before selling these things. I forewent commenting on their pre-market testing because I assumed that flokie already knew that the cars and ML models they use had been extensively tested on tracks and in simulation before the first Tesla was allowed on California roads. And they would have be complete idiots had they not done such testing, no investors would have funded that. Reactions like flokie's were completely predictable the moment driver assistance techniques were thought of. The only acceptable response a company can have to such criticism is "we have tested this extensively and it is safer than driving manually". Market forces aside, no car drives on roads in any US state without extensive testing and certification. All of the companies testing self-driving technology had to get special permits to do so. Even just a reading of their actual statements offers some insight in to the amount of testing and data collection they are still doing. https://www.tesla.com/blog/what-we-know-about-last-weeks-accident https://www.tesla.com/blog/what-we-know-about-last-weeks-acc... https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week%E2%80%99s-accident https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week%E2%80%99s-accide...

dustingetz 8y ago

Tesla has world-class PR, let's assume they're saying the right thing. What circumstances might they be facing to which this message is a correct response?

rayiner 8y ago

They’re really digging themselves a hole. Can you imagine explaining to a jury that your “autopilot” isn’t “fully-autonomous” and trying to justify that as not misleading by pointing to “autopilots in aviation?”

Retra 8y ago
It's called a 'brand name' and people are surrounded by them. I can't eat my Apple MacBook, despite the fact it is misleadingly branded as fruit. Everyone in this thread seems perfectly capable of understanding that 'autopilot' doesn't mean 'fully autonomous', and they got to that understanding through the fairly mundane and routine method of thinking about it.

paulcole 8y ago

Pretty bold to think you could singlehandedly wirte a release for Tesla. Feels like the communications equivalent of Dropbox is a weekend project. Just curious, what’s your writing background?

fipple 8y ago
Except... he actually wrote it. It’s like if someone said Dropbox is a weekend project and then it was available for download the next Monday.
- paulcole 8y ago
  It'd be more like releasing a clone of Dropbox called "Dropbox for Backing Up Files" that made your files public and gave your credit card info to Russian hackers. Sure it might look neat to someone on the outside but it wouldn't take long to see it's nothing like the real thing made by someone who knows what they're doing.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    It matters whether it functions correctly, not whether an expert can tell if it was made by an expert. This statement is fine.
    - paulcole 8y ago
      The statement does not function correctly. Do you honestly believe the statement, as written, aligns with the goals Tesla sets for themselves when releasing a statement? If yes, then how wildly incompetent must Tesla be to release the statement they did. If no, then this statement does not serve the function of a statement released by Tesla.

dosycorp 8y ago

Great copywriting. It seems in part this is a user interface issue in that the limitations of the system are not clearly enough surfaced so people’s expectations are off-base.

st26 8y ago

The car cannot drive itself It seems like Tesla is careful not to dispel the illusion it can. Like how alcohol does not get you women- but all the adverts deftly imply it can, without actually saying it can.

nukeop 8y ago

>Forty thousands Americans die on the roads each year. That's a statistic. But even a single death of a Tesla driver or passenger is a tragedy. I don't know if paraphrasing Joseph Stalin is the right way to go around this