4 ms·

> There is not enough data to do this "scaling up". So doing so would be incredibly misleading (But doesn't stop tesla's PR from doing the same). There are ten

> There is not enough data to do this "scaling up". So doing so would be incredibly misleading (But doesn't stop tesla's PR from doing the same). There are tens of thousands of Tesla vehicles on the road, many of which have been driven for years. However, the strength of Tesla vehicles safety doesn't rest on Tesla vehicles alone. Tesla vehicles are a class of vehicle which implement driver assistance technologies. There are many other cars that do this. Independent analysis of these cars in aggregate have shown them to reduce car accident frequency and severity. https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/driver-assistance-technologies https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/driver-assistance-technologi... > The actions of this company and the persons behind this somehow does not feel compatible with such a goal. I am sorry. I am just not buying it. It is more probable that this "saving the planet" narrative is something that is meant to differentiate from the competition and to attract investors. Tesla is a leader in the renewable energy sector. There is a need for renewable energy as a consequence of climate change. Being a leading player in renewable energy means being a leading player in combating climate change. So Tesla is a leader in combating climate change. Combating climate change is an effort to save the planet. So Tesla is a leading player in the effort toward saving the planet. At no point in the chain of logic is it necessary to call upon the motivations of Elon Musk. If someone were kill another person, the motivation for doing that deed would not change whether or not they did in fact kill someone. In the same manner, the fact that Tesla is helping to solve the problem of climate change is a fact irregardless of the motivation of its founder.

buvanshak 8y ago
To be clear, by misleading marketing, I meant things like the "autopilot" feature. And claiming that they have "full self driving hardware". I am not sure how the safety of vehicles with assistive tech is relevant. I am not at all disagreeing on that aspect. You were saying that fact that vehicles with assistive tech are safer is reflected in tesla's marketing and PR. I am still not sure how that could be the case. How does it justify calling a half baked self driving tech as autopilot and selling them to unsuspecting people? >At no point in the chain of logic is it necessary to call upon the motivations of Elon Musk. We are interested in their motivation because we are thinking long term. When you are need of a million bucks, and a person shows up with a million bucks that they are willing to give you, without asking for payback, will you accept it right away? Or will you try to infer the true motivation behind the act, that may turn out to be sinister? This is irrespective of the fact that the other person is giving you real money, that can help you right now. Will you think like, we don't need to worry about their motivations as long as we are getting real money. Will you? Hope I am clear.
- JoshCole 8y ago
  > I am not sure how the safety of vehicles with assistive tech is relevant. I am not at all disagreeing on that aspect. You were saying that fact that vehicles with assistive tech are safer is reflected in tesla's marketing and PR. I am still not sure how that could be the case. How does it justify calling a half baked self driving tech as autopilot and selling them to unsuspecting people? I brought up driver assistance technology as a way to continue discussing safety statistics. If you recall, I claimed autopilot was safer and you ruled this out on the basis of not enough information. Now you are saying that you don't feel the broader class is relevant to the discussion. So we return to the point where there is not enough information to make statistical claim about safety. As a consequence of returning to this point, your own claim about the system being half baked is without merit. Its a claim about the performance of the system which you have claimed we can not characterize with the currently available statistics. > We are interested in their motivation because we are thinking long term. The thing I'm ultimately arguing against is the idea that Tesla is as you put it blatantly evil. Blatant means to be open and unashamed, completely lacking in subtlety and very obvious. The things Tesla is doing with regard to the environment are blatantly good. They say they are doing it because of care for the environment and their actions reflect that. If we think long-term, their actions are part of what allows the long term to exist in the first place. They are not just lacking in shame for that, they are proud of it. Brag about it. Exult in it. It is blatant that they care about the environment. In your post you're saying that you speculate that their motivations might not be what they have claimed. This contradicts the idea of blatant evil. Blatant evil is obvious, lacking in shame, lacking in subtlety. The hiding of something is the definition of subtlety. The need to hide is reflective of a shame.
  - buvanshak 8y ago
    > Its a claim about the performance of the system which you have claimed we can not characterize with the currently available statistics. I claimed the feature they call "Autopilot" is unsafe because it has only limited capability (as per Tesla's documentation). But the naming of the feature and its marketing inspires false confidence in the drivers, leading to accidents. This is a very simple fact, and it should have been apparent to people a Tesla, and the fact that they went ahead and did this kind of marketing makes them "blatantly evil" in my books. Because, as you said, it is open and they are unashamed about it. Other safety features that are widely available in similar cars from other companies is irrelavant here. I am not even sure why you dragged it into this. >If we think long-term, their actions are part of what allows the long term to exist in the first place. What kind of circular logic is that? If they are not really interested (their real motivation) in the "long term", then their actions cease to be part of "what allows long term to exist".

buvanshak 8y ago

To be clear, by misleading marketing, I meant things like the "autopilot" feature. And claiming that they have "full self driving hardware". I am not sure how the safety of vehicles with assistive tech is relevant. I am not at all disagreeing on that aspect. You were saying that fact that vehicles with assistive tech are safer is reflected in tesla's marketing and PR. I am still not sure how that could be the case. How does it justify calling a half baked self driving tech as autopilot and selling them to unsuspecting people? >At no point in the chain of logic is it necessary to call upon the motivations of Elon Musk. We are interested in their motivation because we are thinking long term. When you are need of a million bucks, and a person shows up with a million bucks that they are willing to give you, without asking for payback, will you accept it right away? Or will you try to infer the true motivation behind the act, that may turn out to be sinister? This is irrespective of the fact that the other person is giving you real money, that can help you right now. Will you think like, we don't need to worry about their motivations as long as we are getting real money. Will you? Hope I am clear.

JoshCole 8y ago
> I am not sure how the safety of vehicles with assistive tech is relevant. I am not at all disagreeing on that aspect. You were saying that fact that vehicles with assistive tech are safer is reflected in tesla's marketing and PR. I am still not sure how that could be the case. How does it justify calling a half baked self driving tech as autopilot and selling them to unsuspecting people? I brought up driver assistance technology as a way to continue discussing safety statistics. If you recall, I claimed autopilot was safer and you ruled this out on the basis of not enough information. Now you are saying that you don't feel the broader class is relevant to the discussion. So we return to the point where there is not enough information to make statistical claim about safety. As a consequence of returning to this point, your own claim about the system being half baked is without merit. Its a claim about the performance of the system which you have claimed we can not characterize with the currently available statistics. > We are interested in their motivation because we are thinking long term. The thing I'm ultimately arguing against is the idea that Tesla is as you put it blatantly evil. Blatant means to be open and unashamed, completely lacking in subtlety and very obvious. The things Tesla is doing with regard to the environment are blatantly good. They say they are doing it because of care for the environment and their actions reflect that. If we think long-term, their actions are part of what allows the long term to exist in the first place. They are not just lacking in shame for that, they are proud of it. Brag about it. Exult in it. It is blatant that they care about the environment. In your post you're saying that you speculate that their motivations might not be what they have claimed. This contradicts the idea of blatant evil. Blatant evil is obvious, lacking in shame, lacking in subtlety. The hiding of something is the definition of subtlety. The need to hide is reflective of a shame.
- buvanshak 8y ago
  > Its a claim about the performance of the system which you have claimed we can not characterize with the currently available statistics. I claimed the feature they call "Autopilot" is unsafe because it has only limited capability (as per Tesla's documentation). But the naming of the feature and its marketing inspires false confidence in the drivers, leading to accidents. This is a very simple fact, and it should have been apparent to people a Tesla, and the fact that they went ahead and did this kind of marketing makes them "blatantly evil" in my books. Because, as you said, it is open and they are unashamed about it. Other safety features that are widely available in similar cars from other companies is irrelavant here. I am not even sure why you dragged it into this. >If we think long-term, their actions are part of what allows the long term to exist in the first place. What kind of circular logic is that? If they are not really interested (their real motivation) in the "long term", then their actions cease to be part of "what allows long term to exist".