3 ms·
there is also no indication that it is _saving_ lives either, stats that are about easy, relatively safe situations, where humans take over when challenges occu
by throwaway2048 9y ago
there is also no indication that it is _saving_ lives either, stats that are about easy, relatively safe situations, where humans take over when challenges occur are not any kind of meaningful indicator.
Not to mention the market telsa courts self selects for safer driving in general (rich, and informed).
To act like this is a clearcut case of the trolley dilemma and telsa is making a moral choice that saves life is misinformed bordering on disingenous.
There is a huge amount of indication that Telsa is acting both irresponsibly (refusing to admit fault, when its clear fault exists, refusing to address concerns, only answering with deflections), and recklessly (misleading marketing about fully capable autodriving hardware, calling a system that requires constant, careful manual attention "autopilot", enabling it by default, absolutely refusing to back down even a little)
- slg 9y agoAs far as I know there has been only a single public study on the safety of Tesla's autopilot. It compared miles driven in Teslas without the autopilot hardware and safety features versus miles driven in Teslas with those features. They showed a 40% reduction in crashes. I think it is fair to assume that a 40% reduction in crashes resulted in numerous lives being saved. I don't see how coming to that conclusion is "misinformed bordering on disingenous". That specific note is available on page 10-11 in the linked study. [1] [1] - https://www.scribd.com/embeds/337007075/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-DgnugphNmXkiFVNAWAvV https://www.scribd.com/embeds/337007075/content?start_page=1...