3 ms·

> And this is exactly why all of these articles recently about how "great" it is that Tesla sends out frequent OTA updates are ridiculous. Frequent, unpredictab

> And this is exactly why all of these articles recently about how "great" it is that Tesla sends out frequent OTA updates are ridiculous. Frequent, unpredictable updates with changelogs that just read "Improvements and bug fixes" is fine when we're talking about a social media app, but is entirely unacceptable when we're talking about the software that controls a 2 ton hunk of metal I recently got downvoted for that exact line of reasoning. Looks like some people don't like to hear that :-)

bertil 8y ago
I think you got down-voted because you misrepresented what Telsa is actually doing, which is a difficult arbitrage between: - known preventable deaths from, say, not staying in the lane aggressively enough; - possible surprises and subsequent deaths. There is an ethical conundrum (that is quite different from the trolley problem) between a known fix and an unknown possibility. If both are clearly establish and you dismiss the former to have a simplistic take, yes, you would be down-voted because you are making the debate less informed. Without falling to solutionism, in that case, the remaining issue seems rather isolated to a handful of areas that look like lanes and could be either painted properly, or that Telsa cars could train to avoid. The later fix would have to be sent rapidly and could have surprising consequences -- although it seems decreasingly likely. That learning pattern (resolving unintended surprises as they happen decreasingly often) is common in software. This explains why this community prefers (to an extend) Telsa to other manufacturers. Others have preferred the surprise-free and PR-friendly option of not saving the dozens of thousand of lives dying on the road at the moment. There are ethical backgrounds to non-interventionism. As the victim of car violence, I happen to think that their position is unethical. I’m actually at what is considered an extreme position, of being in favour of Telsa (and Waymo) taking more risk than necessary and temporarily increasing the number of accidents on the road because they have a far better track record of learning from those accidents (and the subsequent press coverage) and that would lower the overall number of deaths faster. As it happens, they don’t need to: even with less than half of accidents from their counterparts, they still get spectacular learning rate.
- InternetOfStuff 8y ago
  Thanks for your comment. I think you may be right. > I think you got down-voted because you misrepresented what Telsa is actually doing, which is a difficult arbitrage between: > > - known preventable deaths from, say, not staying in the lane aggressively enough; > > - possible surprises and subsequent deaths. I don't think I was misrepresenting anything (at least, I was trying not to). I just pointed out that behaviour-changing updates that may be harmless in, say, smartphone apps, are much more problematic in environments such as driving-assisted cars. I think this is objectively true. And I think we need to come up with mechanisms to solve these problems. > That learning pattern (resolving unintended surprises as they happen decreasingly often) is common in software. My argument is that changes in behaviour are (almost automatically) surprising, and thus inherently dangerous. Unless my car is truly autonomous and doesn't need my intervention, it must be predictable. Updates run the risk oof breaking htat predictability. > Others have preferred the surprise-free and PR-friendly option of not saving the dozens of thousand of lives dying on the road at the moment. My worry is that (potentially) people will still die, just different ones. > being in favour of Telsa (and Waymo) taking more risk than necessary If I'm taking you literally, that's an obviously unwise position to take ("more than necessary"). But I think I know what you meant to say: err on the side of faster learning, accepting the potential consequences. Perhaps like NASA in the 1960s. But my argument was simply that there is a problem with frequent, gradual updates. Not that we shouldn't update (even though that's actually one option). We ought to search for solutions to this problem. I can think of several that aren't "don't update". But claiming that the problem doesn't exist, or that those that worry about it are unreasonable, is unhelpful.

bertil 8y ago

I think you got down-voted because you misrepresented what Telsa is actually doing, which is a difficult arbitrage between: - known preventable deaths from, say, not staying in the lane aggressively enough; - possible surprises and subsequent deaths. There is an ethical conundrum (that is quite different from the trolley problem) between a known fix and an unknown possibility. If both are clearly establish and you dismiss the former to have a simplistic take, yes, you would be down-voted because you are making the debate less informed. Without falling to solutionism, in that case, the remaining issue seems rather isolated to a handful of areas that look like lanes and could be either painted properly, or that Telsa cars could train to avoid. The later fix would have to be sent rapidly and could have surprising consequences -- although it seems decreasingly likely. That learning pattern (resolving unintended surprises as they happen decreasingly often) is common in software. This explains why this community prefers (to an extend) Telsa to other manufacturers. Others have preferred the surprise-free and PR-friendly option of not saving the dozens of thousand of lives dying on the road at the moment. There are ethical backgrounds to non-interventionism. As the victim of car violence, I happen to think that their position is unethical. I’m actually at what is considered an extreme position, of being in favour of Telsa (and Waymo) taking more risk than necessary and temporarily increasing the number of accidents on the road because they have a far better track record of learning from those accidents (and the subsequent press coverage) and that would lower the overall number of deaths faster. As it happens, they don’t need to: even with less than half of accidents from their counterparts, they still get spectacular learning rate.

InternetOfStuff 8y ago
Thanks for your comment. I think you may be right. > I think you got down-voted because you misrepresented what Telsa is actually doing, which is a difficult arbitrage between: > > - known preventable deaths from, say, not staying in the lane aggressively enough; > > - possible surprises and subsequent deaths. I don't think I was misrepresenting anything (at least, I was trying not to). I just pointed out that behaviour-changing updates that may be harmless in, say, smartphone apps, are much more problematic in environments such as driving-assisted cars. I think this is objectively true. And I think we need to come up with mechanisms to solve these problems. > That learning pattern (resolving unintended surprises as they happen decreasingly often) is common in software. My argument is that changes in behaviour are (almost automatically) surprising, and thus inherently dangerous. Unless my car is truly autonomous and doesn't need my intervention, it must be predictable. Updates run the risk oof breaking htat predictability. > Others have preferred the surprise-free and PR-friendly option of not saving the dozens of thousand of lives dying on the road at the moment. My worry is that (potentially) people will still die, just different ones. > being in favour of Telsa (and Waymo) taking more risk than necessary If I'm taking you literally, that's an obviously unwise position to take ("more than necessary"). But I think I know what you meant to say: err on the side of faster learning, accepting the potential consequences. Perhaps like NASA in the 1960s. But my argument was simply that there is a problem with frequent, gradual updates. Not that we shouldn't update (even though that's actually one option). We ought to search for solutions to this problem. I can think of several that aren't "don't update". But claiming that the problem doesn't exist, or that those that worry about it are unreasonable, is unhelpful.