2 ms·
I upvoted your comment because it’s a reasonable position to take, in my opinion. I guess the down voters are probably wondering what would have happened if no
by TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
I upvoted your comment because it’s a reasonable position to take, in my opinion.
I guess the down voters are probably wondering what would have happened if nobody tried to stop the vehicle. The obvious thing to do is slow down and stop in front of it, unless the car wound then change lanes out of the way. That’s a worrying thought.
I tend to agree with your sentiment, at least in the future tense: self driving cars could, at least theoretically, drive sleeping / inebriated / injured people.
We’re probably not there yet, and I don’t believe Tesla advertise this as a feature.
- csydas 8y agoI think the downvotes are because the GP makes a sweeping generalization to conclude and makes it seem as if the auto-pilot was the only reason the man survived. Based on the report and the description of how Tesla's auto-pilot functionality is supposed to work, it sounds like a bug or unintended activation of the auto-pilot prevented an initial tragedy, and the Highway Patrol luckily developed a smart way of safely stopping the car. As was commented elsewhere, the story would have been way different had any number of factors, human or AI, been slightly different. I really hope that a proper review on what engaged the auto-pilot here is performed so there is a clearer understanding. But as for the GP, I personally find their post to be contentless, even if their reaction is one that many people might have.