3 ms·

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 t

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".
  - JoshCole 8y ago
    > I claimed the feature they call "Autopilot" is unsafe because it has only limited capability (as per Tesla's documentation). In citing their documentation, you acknowledge that there communication is enough to deduce the limits of their technology. In claiming that there is not enough data to make declarations about safety, you disavow the validity of your own proclamation of (a lack of) safety. In doing so, you've refuted many of the premises of your own argument. > But the naming of the feature and its marketing inspires false confidence in the drivers, leading to accidents. How is this different from any other name? Every word concept pair starts out without the word and the concept linked together. For example, the name given to our species is 'homo sapien' which means roughly 'wise human being'. But humans aren't always wise. So why isn't the person who coined the term 'homo sapien' blatantly evil for coining the term? > If they are not really interested in the "long term", then their actions cease to be part of "what allows [the] long term to exist". Maybe we're talking past each other but this is... an absurd idea. And wrong. So very wrong. If someone wakes up in the morning and they say they got up because they wanted to see the face of their loved one, but really they got up because they wanted to pee, they still got up out of bed. The existence of imperfectly stated motivations doesn't cause a cessation of causal history.

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".
- JoshCole 8y ago
  > I claimed the feature they call "Autopilot" is unsafe because it has only limited capability (as per Tesla's documentation). In citing their documentation, you acknowledge that there communication is enough to deduce the limits of their technology. In claiming that there is not enough data to make declarations about safety, you disavow the validity of your own proclamation of (a lack of) safety. In doing so, you've refuted many of the premises of your own argument. > But the naming of the feature and its marketing inspires false confidence in the drivers, leading to accidents. How is this different from any other name? Every word concept pair starts out without the word and the concept linked together. For example, the name given to our species is 'homo sapien' which means roughly 'wise human being'. But humans aren't always wise. So why isn't the person who coined the term 'homo sapien' blatantly evil for coining the term? > If they are not really interested in the "long term", then their actions cease to be part of "what allows [the] long term to exist". Maybe we're talking past each other but this is... an absurd idea. And wrong. So very wrong. If someone wakes up in the morning and they say they got up because they wanted to see the face of their loved one, but really they got up because they wanted to pee, they still got up out of bed. The existence of imperfectly stated motivations doesn't cause a cessation of causal history.