4 ms·

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 ve

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.
    - txcwpalpha 9y ago
      >Like I said in my previous comment, neither of us know how many accidents were prevented or lives saved by that update. Then why are you making assumptions about it, then? >You are drawing those conclusions with only half of the equation. No, I'm not. The facts are: there was a problem that was reported to Tesla, Tesla ignored that problem, and now someone is dead because of that problem. No further information is needed to recognize that Tesla acted poorly here.
      - slg 9y ago
        I said Tesla failed in my first comment. I am not defending them regarding this particular accident. I am simply explaining the potential logic behind their decisions and why this single failure doesn't mean their approach is inherently wrong. The only assumption I am making is that Tesla has good intentions with their aggressive autopilot releases.
      - fmihaila 9y ago
        > and now someone is dead because of that problem. You've stated this repeatedly without proof. It has not been established he is dead because of that problem. The investigation may yet reach that conclusion, but until then you have no support for this assertion.

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.
  - txcwpalpha 9y ago
    >Like I said in my previous comment, neither of us know how many accidents were prevented or lives saved by that update. Then why are you making assumptions about it, then? >You are drawing those conclusions with only half of the equation. No, I'm not. The facts are: there was a problem that was reported to Tesla, Tesla ignored that problem, and now someone is dead because of that problem. No further information is needed to recognize that Tesla acted poorly here.
    - slg 9y ago
      I said Tesla failed in my first comment. I am not defending them regarding this particular accident. I am simply explaining the potential logic behind their decisions and why this single failure doesn't mean their approach is inherently wrong. The only assumption I am making is that Tesla has good intentions with their aggressive autopilot releases.
    - fmihaila 9y ago
      > and now someone is dead because of that problem. You've stated this repeatedly without proof. It has not been established he is dead because of that problem. The investigation may yet reach that conclusion, but until then you have no support for this assertion.