4 ms·

As someone elsewhere in this thread put it, this is a case where silicon valley's posterchild slogan "move fast and break things" has turned into a reality of "

As someone elsewhere in this thread put it, this is a case where silicon valley's posterchild slogan "move fast and break things" has turned into a reality of "move fast and end lives". Fast updates can be a great thing, but companies (in this case, Tesla) need to do a better job of figuring out when to apply this mentality of "move fast" and when to instead apply a mentality of "move slower because even the slightest error in this update could result in bodily harm to someone". There's a reason that most non-software industries (think aviation, medical, most car manufacturers not named Tesla) move excruciatingly slow when rolling out new features.

noir_lord 9y ago
> There's a reason that most non-software industries (think aviation, medical, most car manufacturers not named Tesla) move excruciatingly slow when rolling out new features. They do and I'm largely glad they do but I think you can go too far the other way, delaying advances that can save lives can result in more lives been lost because of the delay. There has to be a middle point, you want new drugs (for example) reaching the market but with the risk minimised to a degree that is acceptable, you simply can't reduce the risk to 0. All that said I'd be fascinated to read the assurance approaches that Tesla uses before pushing out updates to what is essentially a computer on wheels attached to batteries.
slg 9y ago
It is the classic trolley[1] problem and Tesla is flipping the switch on the tracks. I don't think there is anything to indicate that Tesla's approach is leading to more deaths. Considering there has only been two confirmed fatalities in which autopilot was partially at fault (AFAIK), I would bet that autopilot is still well in the positives in "lives saved" versus "lives ended". Whether that is the right ethical or moral decision is something that can be debated forever, but Musk and in turn Tesla have made it very clear where they stands on it. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
- txcwpalpha 9y ago
  But this isn't a question about no autopilot vs autopilot. This is a question about the previous version of autopilot vs the current version. If the previous version of autopilot (read: the one that didn't swerve into barriers and kill someone) was working, why did they update everyone to this new version which apparently has a life-threatening bug? Was it necessary to roll out this update so quickly? My guess is no, and that with less of a "move fast and break things" mentality, they might have tested the update more and fixed this issue before it went live.
  - slg 9y ago
    The same principle applies. Autopilot is not a binary feature that either works or doesn't. It is an evolving system that should continuously get better and safer. Sure, Tesla could have delayed this specific update in favor of more testing. But how many preventable accidents would happen during that testing period that an earlier roll out could have prevented? Neither you or I know the answer to that. Tesla has access to all the autopilot data and therefore should be able to more accurately predict that number. I haven't seen anything to suggest Tesla is ignoring that data or being reckless in when they decide to roll out these changes.
    - txcwpalpha 9y ago
      >It is an evolving system that should continuously get better and safer. In this instance, it didn't get safer. It did the opposite, and it killed someone. >I haven't seen anything to suggest Tesla is ignoring that data or being reckless in when they decide to roll out these changes. You haven't? Because I'm sitting here looking at a story about a bug in Tesla's latest software that Tesla ignored and then it resulted in someone's death.
      - slg 9y ago
        You are drawing those conclusions with only half of the equation. Like I said in my previous comment, neither of us know how many accidents were prevented or lives saved by that update.

noir_lord 9y ago

> There's a reason that most non-software industries (think aviation, medical, most car manufacturers not named Tesla) move excruciatingly slow when rolling out new features. They do and I'm largely glad they do but I think you can go too far the other way, delaying advances that can save lives can result in more lives been lost because of the delay. There has to be a middle point, you want new drugs (for example) reaching the market but with the risk minimised to a degree that is acceptable, you simply can't reduce the risk to 0. All that said I'd be fascinated to read the assurance approaches that Tesla uses before pushing out updates to what is essentially a computer on wheels attached to batteries.

slg 9y ago

It is the classic trolley[1] problem and Tesla is flipping the switch on the tracks. I don't think there is anything to indicate that Tesla's approach is leading to more deaths. Considering there has only been two confirmed fatalities in which autopilot was partially at fault (AFAIK), I would bet that autopilot is still well in the positives in "lives saved" versus "lives ended". Whether that is the right ethical or moral decision is something that can be debated forever, but Musk and in turn Tesla have made it very clear where they stands on it. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

txcwpalpha 9y ago
But this isn't a question about no autopilot vs autopilot. This is a question about the previous version of autopilot vs the current version. If the previous version of autopilot (read: the one that didn't swerve into barriers and kill someone) was working, why did they update everyone to this new version which apparently has a life-threatening bug? Was it necessary to roll out this update so quickly? My guess is no, and that with less of a "move fast and break things" mentality, they might have tested the update more and fixed this issue before it went live.
- slg 9y ago
  The same principle applies. Autopilot is not a binary feature that either works or doesn't. It is an evolving system that should continuously get better and safer. Sure, Tesla could have delayed this specific update in favor of more testing. But how many preventable accidents would happen during that testing period that an earlier roll out could have prevented? Neither you or I know the answer to that. Tesla has access to all the autopilot data and therefore should be able to more accurately predict that number. I haven't seen anything to suggest Tesla is ignoring that data or being reckless in when they decide to roll out these changes.
  - txcwpalpha 9y ago
    >It is an evolving system that should continuously get better and safer. In this instance, it didn't get safer. It did the opposite, and it killed someone. >I haven't seen anything to suggest Tesla is ignoring that data or being reckless in when they decide to roll out these changes. You haven't? Because I'm sitting here looking at a story about a bug in Tesla's latest software that Tesla ignored and then it resulted in someone's death.
    - slg 9y ago
      You are drawing those conclusions with only half of the equation. Like I said in my previous comment, neither of us know how many accidents were prevented or lives saved by that update.