5 ms·

I am honestly not sure how to interpret your comment but I'll try to respond. The fault is not with the AP. That's just a computer doing what it was programmed

I am honestly not sure how to interpret your comment but I'll try to respond. The fault is not with the AP. That's just a computer doing what it was programmed to do. It's with how the system is presented by the people selling it. The marketing is intentionally deceptive for profit and people died for believing it. And Germany didn't ban the system, they banned the deception. If Wells Fargo or Comcast did the same pitchforks would be out. But Comcast can only hurt you, misusing AP can hurt others too. So having the government intervene is a matter of public safety and doing what a government should do: look out for people's interests, not the corporations'. When you build a system you have to compensate for inherent weaknesses. Tesla does the opposite and exploits them for profit (as many other companies do) by capitalizing on these well known human weaknesses (lack of attention, gullibility especially with complex topics). They use easy to fool systems that assume drivers are always engaged because they allow the AP to disconnect less and look more capable. And they capitalize on the gullibility by branding the AP as something it's clearly not: > full self-driving in almost all circumstances. The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat > All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go. > manage complex intersections with traffic lights, stop signs and roundabouts, and handle densely packed freeways with cars moving at high speed. > use of these features without supervision is dependent [...] regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions.

emn13 6y ago
I think the parent poster is trying to make the point that it's unreasonable to ask people to pay attention. In any case the fault is most certainly not merely marketing, it's a fundamental design flaw. You cannot expect people to maintain constant attention when that attention almost never leads to anything; people simply aren't capable of that. That's also why similarly "boring" tasks are so failure prone (e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/11/09/tsa-misses-70-of-fake-weapons-but-thats-an-improvement/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/11/09/tsa...) and why all kinds of creative measures are needed if you really need people to stare at stuff looking for black swans until their eyes glaze over. Better marketing is not a solution to that problem. That's merely a solution to the fraudulent advertising (also worth solving - sure!)
- buran77 6y ago
  > In any case the fault is most certainly not merely marketing, it's a fundamental design flaw. I was actually referring to the ruling. The court did not take issue with the autopilot system, just with the way it's marketed. For the rest of your comment I agree and I implied something along the same lines. Tesla should have built a system that works to compensate for human failings, not take advantage of them to sell more. New roads are built to be more wavy to keep the drivers more engaged, some traffic light systems that are synchronized as a "green wave" are sometimes stunted to not create this automation of running through lights (especially true of public transport vehicles where lights sync to the vehicle, except when an emergency vehicle is coming), etc. Tesla should have installed an advanced driver attention monitoring system even before turning on the AP and they should have set very, very clear expectations from the system. In reality they did the opposite with people ending up believing that the AP can handle driving by itself so they can "disconnect", but the attention monitoring being completely unfit for the purpose of making sure the human is "connected".
  - richardwhiuk 6y ago
    > public transport vehicles where lights sync to the vehicle This is a common rumour, but is there anywhere which actually implements this?
    - iggldiggl 6y ago
      Yes. (And I can also confirm the effect that at intersections where full public transport priority usually guarantees a green some drivers do react a bit... surprised on the rare occasion when it doesn't work for whatever reasons)
      - buran77 6y ago
        > the rare occasion when it doesn't work for whatever reasons That's actually intentional (or at least I know for a fact that in some places it's by design). It keeps drivers alert and break the habit of just going ahead. Sometime for whatever reason the light has to be red and in some cases the public transport drivers were so used to just going through the intersection that they completely miss the lights. Also many of them get in their personal cars at the end of the day to the same effect. It's a known, studied effect and the solution is to "mix it up" a bit.
MereInterest 6y ago
Overall, I agree with the decision, that Tesla did falsely advertise by overstating what their autopilot could do. The point I was attempting to make was that that was not the only issue wrong. Specifically, the "their fault" in the GP's parenthetical I took to be referring to the safety driver, implying that the crashes were the fault of the human in the car not paying sufficient attention. I disagree with that statement, as paying high levels of attention to tasks that require zero attention the majority of the time is fundamentally not something that humans can do.

emn13 6y ago

I think the parent poster is trying to make the point that it's unreasonable to ask people to pay attention. In any case the fault is most certainly not merely marketing, it's a fundamental design flaw. You cannot expect people to maintain constant attention when that attention almost never leads to anything; people simply aren't capable of that. That's also why similarly "boring" tasks are so failure prone (e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/11/09/tsa-misses-70-of-fake-weapons-but-thats-an-improvement/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/11/09/tsa...) and why all kinds of creative measures are needed if you really need people to stare at stuff looking for black swans until their eyes glaze over. Better marketing is not a solution to that problem. That's merely a solution to the fraudulent advertising (also worth solving - sure!)

buran77 6y ago
> In any case the fault is most certainly not merely marketing, it's a fundamental design flaw. I was actually referring to the ruling. The court did not take issue with the autopilot system, just with the way it's marketed. For the rest of your comment I agree and I implied something along the same lines. Tesla should have built a system that works to compensate for human failings, not take advantage of them to sell more. New roads are built to be more wavy to keep the drivers more engaged, some traffic light systems that are synchronized as a "green wave" are sometimes stunted to not create this automation of running through lights (especially true of public transport vehicles where lights sync to the vehicle, except when an emergency vehicle is coming), etc. Tesla should have installed an advanced driver attention monitoring system even before turning on the AP and they should have set very, very clear expectations from the system. In reality they did the opposite with people ending up believing that the AP can handle driving by itself so they can "disconnect", but the attention monitoring being completely unfit for the purpose of making sure the human is "connected".
- richardwhiuk 6y ago
  > public transport vehicles where lights sync to the vehicle This is a common rumour, but is there anywhere which actually implements this?
  - iggldiggl 6y ago
    Yes. (And I can also confirm the effect that at intersections where full public transport priority usually guarantees a green some drivers do react a bit... surprised on the rare occasion when it doesn't work for whatever reasons)
    - buran77 6y ago
      > the rare occasion when it doesn't work for whatever reasons That's actually intentional (or at least I know for a fact that in some places it's by design). It keeps drivers alert and break the habit of just going ahead. Sometime for whatever reason the light has to be red and in some cases the public transport drivers were so used to just going through the intersection that they completely miss the lights. Also many of them get in their personal cars at the end of the day to the same effect. It's a known, studied effect and the solution is to "mix it up" a bit.

MereInterest 6y ago

Overall, I agree with the decision, that Tesla did falsely advertise by overstating what their autopilot could do. The point I was attempting to make was that that was not the only issue wrong. Specifically, the "their fault" in the GP's parenthetical I took to be referring to the safety driver, implying that the crashes were the fault of the human in the car not paying sufficient attention. I disagree with that statement, as paying high levels of attention to tasks that require zero attention the majority of the time is fundamentally not something that humans can do.