4 ms·

"Tesla's safety record" is misleading: * every update to the software makes the record irrelevant, because one is no longer driving the same car which set the

by blub 8y ago

"Tesla's safety record" is misleading: * every update to the software makes the record irrelevant, because one is no longer driving the same car which set the previous record. Lane centering for instance was introduced in an OTA update and it likely contributed to this accident. * most of the safe miles driven by Teslas are not with autopilot on. The NTSB explicitly said they did not test autopilot. * finally, some HN users did the math and it turns out that humans have overall a better safety record than autopilot Teslas. To me it looks like Tesla's communication is only reflective of covering their asses. From blaming that journalist to the latest accident. Note: I work for a Tesla competitor.

tigershark 8y ago
Your first point is absolutely misleading. You can apply the same logic to the other cars saying that they are all different because of the different tyres, the different conditions of the tyres, of the brakes, the different degree of care and so on. You can’t just say that they are not the same cars because of the different variables.
- etaioinshrdlu 8y ago
  I think OTA driving software updates are a bigger variable than tires. I think you would too if you think about it more.
JoshCole 8y ago
I agree that there are aspects of the Tesla safety record which have caveats, but even when I take those caveats into account, I still come out thinking of the Tesla as being relatively safe. The same feature which adds danger at every update is one that also has the potential to add safety at every update. Eventually for example, that same update feature is expected to bring the car to the point of being superhuman in its ability to drive safely. The inability to rely on the autopilot means that I'm still responsible for my own safety, so the autopilot safety isn't as important as the car's safety in general. I disagree that their communication is only reflective of them covering their ass. I feel their is the expectation that self-driving is going to prevent more deaths than it causes. Especially as the technology improves, but even to an extent now if only through the virtue of it not being a system people should be using without being ready to intervene. Don't get me wrong here, you raise good points. I just don't think it's a case of blatant evil. Also, if you have the link to the math, I'd love to read it.
- buvanshak 8y ago
  >The same feature which adds danger at every update is one that also has the potential to add safety at every update... You don't work in software, right?
  - JoshCole 8y ago
    https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116969_tesla-model-3-earns-consumer-reports-recommendation-after-software-brake-upgrade https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116969_tesla-model-3-e... An ad hominess attack doesn't not trump evidence. My claim is true. The above article talks about an example of an update which improved the safety of the vehicle.
    - buvanshak 8y ago
      Dude, that is not an attack. Only if you have written software, you ll be aware of how seemingly innocent changes can break it in unexpected ways...And your "proof" article does not change anything...
      - JoshCole 8y ago
        You question my credentials, while quoting one of my premises. This is, implicitly, an ad hominem argument against the premise you quoted. In addition to that, you're arguing against a strawman. I never disagreed that there was potential for the safety to be negatively impacted with every update. In fact, I explicitly agreed with this claim.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        buvanshak 8y ago
        >I never disagreed that there was potential for the safety to be negatively impacted with every update... The point you are missing is that while update might be slightly enhance safety, the negative, unpredictable impact might be catastrophic. because one is planned and other one is not.

by blub 8y ago

tigershark 8y ago

Your first point is absolutely misleading. You can apply the same logic to the other cars saying that they are all different because of the different tyres, the different conditions of the tyres, of the brakes, the different degree of care and so on. You can’t just say that they are not the same cars because of the different variables.

etaioinshrdlu 8y ago
I think OTA driving software updates are a bigger variable than tires. I think you would too if you think about it more.

JoshCole 8y ago

I agree that there are aspects of the Tesla safety record which have caveats, but even when I take those caveats into account, I still come out thinking of the Tesla as being relatively safe. The same feature which adds danger at every update is one that also has the potential to add safety at every update. Eventually for example, that same update feature is expected to bring the car to the point of being superhuman in its ability to drive safely. The inability to rely on the autopilot means that I'm still responsible for my own safety, so the autopilot safety isn't as important as the car's safety in general. I disagree that their communication is only reflective of them covering their ass. I feel their is the expectation that self-driving is going to prevent more deaths than it causes. Especially as the technology improves, but even to an extent now if only through the virtue of it not being a system people should be using without being ready to intervene. Don't get me wrong here, you raise good points. I just don't think it's a case of blatant evil. Also, if you have the link to the math, I'd love to read it.

buvanshak 8y ago
>The same feature which adds danger at every update is one that also has the potential to add safety at every update... You don't work in software, right?
- JoshCole 8y ago
  https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116969_tesla-model-3-earns-consumer-reports-recommendation-after-software-brake-upgrade https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116969_tesla-model-3-e... An ad hominess attack doesn't not trump evidence. My claim is true. The above article talks about an example of an update which improved the safety of the vehicle.
  - buvanshak 8y ago
    Dude, that is not an attack. Only if you have written software, you ll be aware of how seemingly innocent changes can break it in unexpected ways...And your "proof" article does not change anything...
    - JoshCole 8y ago
      You question my credentials, while quoting one of my premises. This is, implicitly, an ad hominem argument against the premise you quoted. In addition to that, you're arguing against a strawman. I never disagreed that there was potential for the safety to be negatively impacted with every update. In fact, I explicitly agreed with this claim.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - buvanshak 8y ago
        >I never disagreed that there was potential for the safety to be negatively impacted with every update... The point you are missing is that while update might be slightly enhance safety, the negative, unpredictable impact might be catastrophic. because one is planned and other one is not.