3 ms·

> but you are mistakenly evaluating it as patently false when you have absolutely no way to know, since it isn’t released yet. What makes it patently false is

> but you are mistakenly evaluating it as patently false when you have absolutely no way to know, since it isn’t released yet. What makes it patently false is that Tesla hasn't proved it even after claiming "next year" for several years now. Even worse, they still don't and can't know if the system will ever be able to perform as described or if the hardware is enough as claimed. If the party making a claim doesn't have the proof for themselves then how can the statement be true today, when they claim it? They are selling today's assumption as a certainty. It doesn't say "we hope" or "be believe" or "it might". They say "it will" with no reservation and no proof available anywhere. That is the falsehood. And just as a sidenote, the company that was providing Tesla with the hardware and knowhow when the statements were originally made, Mobileye, ended the partnership in 2016 because they did not believe their own systems are able to fulfill the promise. That shows that promises were already made once without Tesla having any proof. Any other company doing this and people would be all over them with accusations. But Tesla has great PR, it is actually working for a better future, and people love a good cause enough to disregard the dirt under the rug.

natch 8y ago
This is all a bunch of fake outrage. Words are written. Some people skip reading important parts of those words, and then blame Tesla for their own laziness or poor reading skills. This is basically what you’re doing, although maybe more as an apologist for others who don’t care to read or pay attention. I’m not even talking about fine print. The stuff that covers this is all very straightforward and not fine print at all. People should take responsibility and read what is actually said. The outrage should be directed at people who make wild misinterpretations of perfectly reasonable statements.
- close04 8y ago
  Yes... it perfectly reasonable to make claims that even the supplier of your HW refutes. Really says a lot about your willingness to say whatever it takes to get more PR and push a few more sales. In the meantime Tesla is the only company with autonomous driving driver fatalities. Multiple. Unless you’re going to claim Tesla buyers are more predisposed to... laziness and inability to process information, then something is definitely wrong in the way the system is presented. Something other manufacturers and all their buyers get right. Mostly all others insist overpromising and underdelivering can be dangerous.
  - natch 8y ago
    They are not autonomous driving fatalities. They can’t be, because there is simply no autonomous driving. You are very confused. Autopilot is not autonomous driving.
    - close04 8y ago
      It's self driving. It's not L5 but the car was taking the decisions in that limited set of conditions. And that's the whole point, the car is unable to take the correct decisions but people still trust it to do so. Why would they? Unless you'll tell me Tesla drivers are intellectually challenged then it must be that they somehow get the wrong impression of what the car can do. How come this doesn't happen to any other manufacturer building cars with this type of limited automation? I see a some people victoriously claiming I've been proven wrong yet all avoid answering this direct question. If nobody can explain why so many Tesla drivers are suicidal then the blame must lie with the system or the way it's described.
      - natch 8y ago
        >If nobody can explain why so many Tesla drivers are suicidal then the blame must lie with the system or the way it's described. I see. You are looking to explain the facts and you have three theories here. 1) Suicidal drivers; 2) Bad system; 3) Bad system description. Let’s just agree it’s not #1. Effectively suicidal you could say, but let’s agree they were (likely) not actually intending suicide. Number 2 is ruled out because the system was never designed to be fully unmonitored... blaming it would be like blaming a seatbelt for an injury sustained by someone who wears the seatbelt incorrectly. Number 3 seems like a likely possibility on the face of it, but the system is actually pretty well described in practice so I would suggest another, fourth, possibility which does not appear on your list: 4) The drivers were imperfect humans who, as some will do, failed to heed the ample safety warnings and were unlucky enough to encounter situations where this failure led to disastrous results. I’ll note this kind of thing happens all the time in cars without autopilot as well. You can point out that in those cases an autopilot system was not in the picture, but that’s a circular argument... of course it wasn’t. People will sometimes be foolish. No system can protect all fools all the time. Expecting otherwise is unreasonable. You’re just blaming Tesla because its autopilot is the first / most prominent such system that has been rolled out to production vehicles. Of course there will be a few foolish people amongst the hundreds of thousands of Tesla drivers. That’s on the people, not the system or the description. Nobody ever promised autopilot would be a perfect nanny that can fend off all dangers and control all human behaviors. >nobody can explain why so many Tesla drivers are suicidal Not suicidal. Just foolish. And not “so many.” We are talking about a handful of incidents, in fact fewer than can be counted on one hand. Fake outrage.

natch 8y ago

This is all a bunch of fake outrage. Words are written. Some people skip reading important parts of those words, and then blame Tesla for their own laziness or poor reading skills. This is basically what you’re doing, although maybe more as an apologist for others who don’t care to read or pay attention. I’m not even talking about fine print. The stuff that covers this is all very straightforward and not fine print at all. People should take responsibility and read what is actually said. The outrage should be directed at people who make wild misinterpretations of perfectly reasonable statements.

close04 8y ago
Yes... it perfectly reasonable to make claims that even the supplier of your HW refutes. Really says a lot about your willingness to say whatever it takes to get more PR and push a few more sales. In the meantime Tesla is the only company with autonomous driving driver fatalities. Multiple. Unless you’re going to claim Tesla buyers are more predisposed to... laziness and inability to process information, then something is definitely wrong in the way the system is presented. Something other manufacturers and all their buyers get right. Mostly all others insist overpromising and underdelivering can be dangerous.
- natch 8y ago
  They are not autonomous driving fatalities. They can’t be, because there is simply no autonomous driving. You are very confused. Autopilot is not autonomous driving.
  - close04 8y ago
    It's self driving. It's not L5 but the car was taking the decisions in that limited set of conditions. And that's the whole point, the car is unable to take the correct decisions but people still trust it to do so. Why would they? Unless you'll tell me Tesla drivers are intellectually challenged then it must be that they somehow get the wrong impression of what the car can do. How come this doesn't happen to any other manufacturer building cars with this type of limited automation? I see a some people victoriously claiming I've been proven wrong yet all avoid answering this direct question. If nobody can explain why so many Tesla drivers are suicidal then the blame must lie with the system or the way it's described.
    - natch 8y ago
      >If nobody can explain why so many Tesla drivers are suicidal then the blame must lie with the system or the way it's described. I see. You are looking to explain the facts and you have three theories here. 1) Suicidal drivers; 2) Bad system; 3) Bad system description. Let’s just agree it’s not #1. Effectively suicidal you could say, but let’s agree they were (likely) not actually intending suicide. Number 2 is ruled out because the system was never designed to be fully unmonitored... blaming it would be like blaming a seatbelt for an injury sustained by someone who wears the seatbelt incorrectly. Number 3 seems like a likely possibility on the face of it, but the system is actually pretty well described in practice so I would suggest another, fourth, possibility which does not appear on your list: 4) The drivers were imperfect humans who, as some will do, failed to heed the ample safety warnings and were unlucky enough to encounter situations where this failure led to disastrous results. I’ll note this kind of thing happens all the time in cars without autopilot as well. You can point out that in those cases an autopilot system was not in the picture, but that’s a circular argument... of course it wasn’t. People will sometimes be foolish. No system can protect all fools all the time. Expecting otherwise is unreasonable. You’re just blaming Tesla because its autopilot is the first / most prominent such system that has been rolled out to production vehicles. Of course there will be a few foolish people amongst the hundreds of thousands of Tesla drivers. That’s on the people, not the system or the description. Nobody ever promised autopilot would be a perfect nanny that can fend off all dangers and control all human behaviors. >nobody can explain why so many Tesla drivers are suicidal Not suicidal. Just foolish. And not “so many.” We are talking about a handful of incidents, in fact fewer than can be counted on one hand. Fake outrage.