7 ms·

No one is saying AP should be the safest thing ever, my comment certainly isn't saying that AP should be some sorr of super-human driver The problem is AP is a

No one is saying AP should be the safest thing ever, my comment certainly isn't saying that AP should be some sorr of super-human driver The problem is AP is actively making itself less safe than it would be without marketing oriented features even with no additional strengths. AP could the same collision avoidance and lane centering capabilities, but not allow the driver to engage them in "Autopilot" style. That's exactly what the AP1 hardware did in other cars. AP would still avoid every accident it could before, but now additionally not kill people when it fails to uphold the very strongly implied (even if legally disclaimed) promises it's marketing and creator love to make. - AP has a set of convenience features and safety features. The convenience features all come with the disclaimer that the human must be attentive at all times while they're engaged. And in cases where the human is not full engaged because they're placing too much trust in the convenience features, suddenly the convenience features are creating a less safe situation than if the driver did not have them at all, since the driver is now driving distracted. The safety features cannot close the gap between a distracted driver and a non-distracted driver, that's why they're not seld-driving cars. - Or to put it another way, good enough is good enough for the safety features. But "good enough" is actually the most dangerous level of the convenience features, since they lull operators into a false sense of security with deadly consequences. That's why Google abandoned their equivalent project (which Elon spoke to them about before developing AP. Google's project was called... Autopilot). It was demonstrated that giving drivers that sort of "good-enough" convenience feature would be encouraging distracted behavior. But that didn't stop Elon. - In fact, thinking about it, how sad is that? Google used cameras in their vehicle in conjunction with AP features and proved that people would misuse the system. Knowing that Elon was in contact with them about the program, isn't it such an odd coincidence that Elon has pushed back on driver monitoring? It's almost like he knows exactly what it would reveal, but doesn't want to invite the trouble that comes with tracking such an inconvenient truth.

Dylan16807 6y ago
> The problem is AP is actively making itself less safe than it would be without marketing oriented features even with no additional strengths. That's a shame but I'm not going to worry all that much about it killing people if it's still safer than a basic car. > Or to put it another way, good enough is good enough for the safety features. But "good enough" is actually the most dangerous level of the convenience features, since they lull operators into a false sense of security with deadly consequences. No. We were talking about the final level of safety after factoring in the hubris-caused danger. The level of safety before factoring in hubris was much better than "good enough".
- dafoex 6y ago
  >The level of safety before factoring in hubris was much better than "good enough". I think the point of the argument is "ship the system that doesn't cause hubris if it is much better than 'good enough'"
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  > That's a shame but I'm not going to worry all that much about it killing people if it's still safer than a basic car. This doesn't make sense unless you just like senesless death. It can be safer than a basic car and not kill people. Or it can be safer than a basic car and kill people for the sake of marketing. Since like I said, AP should not leave you feeling rested, full attentiveness is required, more than usual. If you're operating under the assumption you can relax a little with it active like a co-pilot or watcher, you're following for it's most dangerous trap. - Also you realize basic cars have been picking up the safety features for a while now right? The Toyota Corolla, the baseline of basic cars, has had LKA for 3 or 4 years now? And will warn a drowsy driver in case of excessive interventions. It's sad again, because if anything Tesla is poisoning the well on these features since they're lulling people who don't even have the cars into a false sense of security. AP marketing makes it seem like it can make a drive more relaxing (with Tesla salespeople using that exact phrasing on a test drive mind you) when the moment it does that, it's making you less safe than if it wouldn't pretend to be capable of that. Now when other manufacturers intentionally omit continuous lane centering, it seems like an omission of a convenience, not an omission of a dangerously misleading liability to the safety of its users.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    If the car only saves 20 lives when it could have saved 70 lives, I don't care if you want to call that "killing people", I think that car is fine. I don't "like senseless deaths" but I think it's acceptable if people like the former car better than the latter car and purchase more of it. > If you're operating under the assumption you can relax a little with it active like a co-pilot or watcher, you're following for it's most dangerous trap. If it's still safer than a car without those features even after falling into the trap then my reaction is a big shrug.

Dylan16807 6y ago

> The problem is AP is actively making itself less safe than it would be without marketing oriented features even with no additional strengths. That's a shame but I'm not going to worry all that much about it killing people if it's still safer than a basic car. > Or to put it another way, good enough is good enough for the safety features. But "good enough" is actually the most dangerous level of the convenience features, since they lull operators into a false sense of security with deadly consequences. No. We were talking about the final level of safety after factoring in the hubris-caused danger. The level of safety before factoring in hubris was much better than "good enough".

dafoex 6y ago
>The level of safety before factoring in hubris was much better than "good enough". I think the point of the argument is "ship the system that doesn't cause hubris if it is much better than 'good enough'"
BoorishBears 6y ago
> That's a shame but I'm not going to worry all that much about it killing people if it's still safer than a basic car. This doesn't make sense unless you just like senesless death. It can be safer than a basic car and not kill people. Or it can be safer than a basic car and kill people for the sake of marketing. Since like I said, AP should not leave you feeling rested, full attentiveness is required, more than usual. If you're operating under the assumption you can relax a little with it active like a co-pilot or watcher, you're following for it's most dangerous trap. - Also you realize basic cars have been picking up the safety features for a while now right? The Toyota Corolla, the baseline of basic cars, has had LKA for 3 or 4 years now? And will warn a drowsy driver in case of excessive interventions. It's sad again, because if anything Tesla is poisoning the well on these features since they're lulling people who don't even have the cars into a false sense of security. AP marketing makes it seem like it can make a drive more relaxing (with Tesla salespeople using that exact phrasing on a test drive mind you) when the moment it does that, it's making you less safe than if it wouldn't pretend to be capable of that. Now when other manufacturers intentionally omit continuous lane centering, it seems like an omission of a convenience, not an omission of a dangerously misleading liability to the safety of its users.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  If the car only saves 20 lives when it could have saved 70 lives, I don't care if you want to call that "killing people", I think that car is fine. I don't "like senseless deaths" but I think it's acceptable if people like the former car better than the latter car and purchase more of it. > If you're operating under the assumption you can relax a little with it active like a co-pilot or watcher, you're following for it's most dangerous trap. If it's still safer than a car without those features even after falling into the trap then my reaction is a big shrug.