7 ms·

Personally I don't disagree with the notion of taking huge risks and going all out. Tesla and SpaceX have made the world a better place in my view, and they've

by entee 8y ago

Personally I don't disagree with the notion of taking huge risks and going all out. Tesla and SpaceX have made the world a better place in my view, and they've definitely made the world more interesting. That said, the overhyping, recklessness and hubris at this stage on the Tesla front seems like instead of helping achieve the wildly ambitious goal, they're making it more likely to fail. If Tesla was slightly more reasonable, and extended their timelines out a bit, it's entirely likely they'd be selling more, better cars. At some point the company needs to mature a bit and become a little more structured, especially when you're dealing with devices that can literally kill people. I don't think at this stage they'd be less likely to hit their marks if they just got a little more down to earth, on the contrary I think it would help them. And like it or not, a fund manager can be risky because they're making dozens of bets. Musk has 2, and both are in areas that can directly harm people if things go sideways, it's not the same thing.

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
Tesla has zero impact on the world right now. And probably never will.
- entee 8y ago
  Isn't that self-evidently false? On at least a superficial level it's a constant part of the conversation. It has in many ways precipitated the debate around self-driving cars by putting the technology in the open (for better and worse and also it's not-quite-there but still!). There's a really strong argument to be made that Tesla has accelerated the development of electric cars at more mainstream manufacturers and pushed large-battery technology substantially forward. Even if Tesla vanished tomorrow, it would be very hard to say it has had no impact.
slg 8y ago
>That said, the overhyping, recklessness and hubris at this stage on the Tesla front seems like instead of helping achieve the wildly ambitious goal, they're making it more likely to fail. If Tesla was slightly more reasonable, and extended their timelines out a bit, it's entirely likely they'd be selling more, better cars. I think Musk and Tesla are in the middle of a real life trolley problem. It is certainly true that people have died as a result of Autopilot. It is also certainly true that lives have been saved by Autopilot. There is no statistics to tell which group is larger, but Musk and Tesla obviously think the second group is larger. If that is true, everything that further delays progress is something that is causing people to die on net. They are instead flipping that switch and possibly killing people, but overall they are saving lives. Thousands of philosophers would have a better take on the ethics of that decision than I would, but that is clearly where the motivation for Musk's aggressiveness is coming from.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
  >. It is also certainly true that lives have been saved by Autopilot. There is no statistics to tell which group is larger, but Musk and Tesla obviously think the second group is larger. The Tesla deaths per mile statistics are not that much better than overall US statistics and that involves all sorts of weather and road conditions that Autopilot does not. In addition, the death statistics also include older and or cheaper cars that do not have the recent safety features. A much better comparison is with vehicles costing the same as Teslas and comparing their crash statistics.
  - freerobby 8y ago
    How about comparing Teslas before Autopilot to Teslas after Autopilot? > ODI analyzed mileage and airbag deployment data supplied by Tesla for all MY 2014 through 2016 Model S and 2016 Model X vehicles equipped with the Autopilot Technology Package... The data show that the Tesla vehicles crash rate dropped by almost 40 percent after Autosteer installation. https://www.scribd.com/document/337008436/NHTSA-Full-Report-on-Tesla-Fatal-Autopilot-Crash#from_embed https://www.scribd.com/document/337008436/NHTSA-Full-Report-...
    - rohit2412 8y ago
      Those stats aren't for autosteer (which is the point of contention) alone, and include AEB which no doubt saves lives. This brings me to a crucial point. Nobody doubts that assistive technology save lives. Not just automatic emergency braking, but even lane keeping assists. What Tesla does is however take lane keeping assist and give it more responsibility of actively driving the car. It's not clear if that is safe. Even if it's safe, it's not clear if it's safer. You shouldn't be comparing autosteer to just a human, but a human with lane keeping assist. The difference is between the human driving actively, and the car driving itself actively.
      - freerobby 8y ago
        > Those stats aren't for autosteer (which is the point of contention) alone, and include AEB which no doubt saves lives. What are you basing this on? AEB was available before Autosteer, and it says in the report that the 40% improvement was after Autosteer installation. > What Tesla does is however take lane keeping assist and give it more responsibility of actively driving the car. Autosteer specifically is new, but the precedent for "active control" isn't. TACC takes just as active a role in driving a car as Autosteer, and most people feel it is net helpful (regardless of manufacturer, but especially in Tesla's case because it can see things via radar that a human cannot, e.g. a second car ahead slamming on the brakes). Heck, a lot of people think even standard cruise control is net helpful! It's not clear to me why longitudinal control is okay to do actively but latitudinal control isn't; both require attention and vigilance. My belief is that people are more skeptical of active latitudinal control because it is so new. It's understandable, but it's not an intellectually satisfying reason to hold back the technology.

by entee 8y ago

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago

Tesla has zero impact on the world right now. And probably never will.

entee 8y ago
Isn't that self-evidently false? On at least a superficial level it's a constant part of the conversation. It has in many ways precipitated the debate around self-driving cars by putting the technology in the open (for better and worse and also it's not-quite-there but still!). There's a really strong argument to be made that Tesla has accelerated the development of electric cars at more mainstream manufacturers and pushed large-battery technology substantially forward. Even if Tesla vanished tomorrow, it would be very hard to say it has had no impact.

slg 8y ago

>That said, the overhyping, recklessness and hubris at this stage on the Tesla front seems like instead of helping achieve the wildly ambitious goal, they're making it more likely to fail. If Tesla was slightly more reasonable, and extended their timelines out a bit, it's entirely likely they'd be selling more, better cars. I think Musk and Tesla are in the middle of a real life trolley problem. It is certainly true that people have died as a result of Autopilot. It is also certainly true that lives have been saved by Autopilot. There is no statistics to tell which group is larger, but Musk and Tesla obviously think the second group is larger. If that is true, everything that further delays progress is something that is causing people to die on net. They are instead flipping that switch and possibly killing people, but overall they are saving lives. Thousands of philosophers would have a better take on the ethics of that decision than I would, but that is clearly where the motivation for Musk's aggressiveness is coming from.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
>. It is also certainly true that lives have been saved by Autopilot. There is no statistics to tell which group is larger, but Musk and Tesla obviously think the second group is larger. The Tesla deaths per mile statistics are not that much better than overall US statistics and that involves all sorts of weather and road conditions that Autopilot does not. In addition, the death statistics also include older and or cheaper cars that do not have the recent safety features. A much better comparison is with vehicles costing the same as Teslas and comparing their crash statistics.
- freerobby 8y ago
  How about comparing Teslas before Autopilot to Teslas after Autopilot? > ODI analyzed mileage and airbag deployment data supplied by Tesla for all MY 2014 through 2016 Model S and 2016 Model X vehicles equipped with the Autopilot Technology Package... The data show that the Tesla vehicles crash rate dropped by almost 40 percent after Autosteer installation. https://www.scribd.com/document/337008436/NHTSA-Full-Report-on-Tesla-Fatal-Autopilot-Crash#from_embed https://www.scribd.com/document/337008436/NHTSA-Full-Report-...
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    Those stats aren't for autosteer (which is the point of contention) alone, and include AEB which no doubt saves lives. This brings me to a crucial point. Nobody doubts that assistive technology save lives. Not just automatic emergency braking, but even lane keeping assists. What Tesla does is however take lane keeping assist and give it more responsibility of actively driving the car. It's not clear if that is safe. Even if it's safe, it's not clear if it's safer. You shouldn't be comparing autosteer to just a human, but a human with lane keeping assist. The difference is between the human driving actively, and the car driving itself actively.
    - freerobby 8y ago
      > Those stats aren't for autosteer (which is the point of contention) alone, and include AEB which no doubt saves lives. What are you basing this on? AEB was available before Autosteer, and it says in the report that the 40% improvement was after Autosteer installation. > What Tesla does is however take lane keeping assist and give it more responsibility of actively driving the car. Autosteer specifically is new, but the precedent for "active control" isn't. TACC takes just as active a role in driving a car as Autosteer, and most people feel it is net helpful (regardless of manufacturer, but especially in Tesla's case because it can see things via radar that a human cannot, e.g. a second car ahead slamming on the brakes). Heck, a lot of people think even standard cruise control is net helpful! It's not clear to me why longitudinal control is okay to do actively but latitudinal control isn't; both require attention and vigilance. My belief is that people are more skeptical of active latitudinal control because it is so new. It's understandable, but it's not an intellectually satisfying reason to hold back the technology.