4 ms·

There is a clear subtext in everything put out by Tesla and Uber that their cars are self-driving. That is to say, they drive themselves. That is to say, nobody

There is a clear subtext in everything put out by Tesla and Uber that their cars are self-driving. That is to say, they drive themselves. That is to say, nobody else needs to drive them in order for them to get from A to B. If they are truly trying to stick to the guns of "well the 'driver' should have been prepared to take over at zero notice", then their (potentially criminal) negligence is in how they present and market their product and not in the software. But it's one or the other.

dabbledash 7y ago
Not to mention, the idea that a human failsafe will be attentive enough to respond instantly is ridiculous to begin with. If the car drives itself 99% of the time, it better drive itself 100% of the time, because the human is checking out.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > because the human is checking out. In some cases in the most literal sense of that.
close04 7y ago
> There is a clear subtext in everything put out That's in marketing materials rather then the legal ones. Which is great to make regular people interpret it "look, it can drive itself, I'll just fiddle with my phone" but doesn't put any of the legal responsibility on the manufacturer's shoulders. I'm guessing regulators will eventually have to weigh in on this.
theptip 7y ago
Hangon, Uber is not selling their product to anybody (yet). This is completely different than what Tesla is doing. Yes, if this code was in a Tesla, it would be criminally negligent, because in the driver's seat of a Tesla is a consumer that bought a product called "autopilot". Uber, and Waymo, and Cruise, are all _testing_ their systems, and that's why they installed safety drivers. There's no marketing here, and there is no customer -- the person in the driver's seat was employed to sit there and pay attention to what's going on, for the explicit reason that the car's computer is NOT yet capable of driving itself.

dabbledash 7y ago

Not to mention, the idea that a human failsafe will be attentive enough to respond instantly is ridiculous to begin with. If the car drives itself 99% of the time, it better drive itself 100% of the time, because the human is checking out.

jacquesm 7y ago
> because the human is checking out. In some cases in the most literal sense of that.

close04 7y ago

> There is a clear subtext in everything put out That's in marketing materials rather then the legal ones. Which is great to make regular people interpret it "look, it can drive itself, I'll just fiddle with my phone" but doesn't put any of the legal responsibility on the manufacturer's shoulders. I'm guessing regulators will eventually have to weigh in on this.

theptip 7y ago

Hangon, Uber is not selling their product to anybody (yet). This is completely different than what Tesla is doing. Yes, if this code was in a Tesla, it would be criminally negligent, because in the driver's seat of a Tesla is a consumer that bought a product called "autopilot". Uber, and Waymo, and Cruise, are all _testing_ their systems, and that's why they installed safety drivers. There's no marketing here, and there is no customer -- the person in the driver's seat was employed to sit there and pay attention to what's going on, for the explicit reason that the car's computer is NOT yet capable of driving itself.