22 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  Here the car saves 100000 lives, but kills 5 people, when it could have just not killed the 5 people! And still saved the same 100000 lives! That's a problem! To any normal person, that's a problem. You're doing this weird math where actively murdering 5 people but saving 100000 is the same as just saving 99995, but it's not when the 5 murders were not a requirement to save 100000. Maybe your confusion is thinking the safety features are the ones doing the killing when they're not? It's extra trimmings built on top of the safety features that are doing the killing. In other words: > If it's still safer than a car without those features even after falling into the trap then my reaction is a big shrug. It's not safer! Because that sentence is about the convenience features are not the safety features! LKA, AEB, Crash avoidance, those all operate separately of the convenience features! And it's not a guess about how the internals work either, Tesla literally sells things like "Navigate on Autopilot" separately. It's really simple logic. The safety features save lives. The convenience features, by definition, cannot save lives that the safety ones didn't. When a Tesla avoids hitting a car coming into it's path, it's not because Navigate with Autopilot was on, it's the Active Safety Features function: https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot But when a Tesla hits a stopped firetruck after Autopilot lulled the driver into thinking they wouldn't have to brake, the active safety features can't do anything! Because the convenience features are subject to the same limitations as the active safety features. --- That's the crux of the issue that you keep missing. No one is saying the active safety features should save more lives, they're saying the convenience features need to stop tricking people into driving distracted. Because those people sometimes die in accidents that wouldn't have happened if they didn't have them. The safety features would still save the same number of people, just no one would die needless deaths in the name of marketing and looking cool.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > You're doing this weird math where actively murdering 5 people but saving 100000 is the same as just saving 99995, but it's not when the 5 murders were not a requirement to save 100000. I don't see it that way. It's a completely random set of people that die either way. And all the deaths basically boil down to "driving is dangerous". It's not one set of people being saved and a different one dying. It's all one group, so only the total number matters. > It's not safer! Because that sentence is about the convenience features are not the safety features! Your sentence was about that. My counterpoint was about more than that. I'll reword my point without the word safer: If the risk reduction from the safety features is bigger than the risk increase from the convenience features, I think things are acceptable. > The safety features save lives. The convenience features, by definition, cannot save lives that the safety ones didn't. I wasn't trying to say the convenience features saved lives. > No one is saying the active safety features should save more lives, they're saying the convenience features need to stop tricking people into driving distracted. I'm the one saying that safety features need to save a certain number of lives. And that number is "enough to make up for the risk caused by the convenience features". > Because those people sometimes die in accidents that wouldn't have happened if they didn't have them. Eh, someone that's distracted could easily die in similar accident in a dumb car. To me it's all risk vs. risk. Nobody is getting murdered by the car as some kind of sick trade-off. It's not a trolley problem. It's just undoing some of the safety. But undoing the safety is acceptable, just like a car that had none of those safety features (and none of those convenience features) would also be acceptable. > The safety features would still save the same number of people, just no one would die needless deaths in the name of marketing and looking cool. If it was just marketing and looking cool that would be one thing. But it's also quite hard mentally to pay attention when everything is on auto. And it's a much nicer driving experience that's inherently dangerous no matter what the marketing says. So I don't think it's possible to have the convenience without the danger. You'd have to disable AP.
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      > It's all one group, so only the total number matters. You're very alone in this line of thought. If you save 100000 people _by murdering_ 5 people, it's unfortunate and a hard choice, but at least arguably good. Most people will be ok with this (this is pretty much how the world turns to some degree) But if you save 100000 lives, then murder 5 victims. And those 5 victims were just murdered to murder tham, no one being saved was resting on it. Most basically ethical people would consider that indefensible. Maybe you're confusing this situation with the former, where lives are treated as fungible to save great numbers. That can be tricky ethically, but at least the greater good is on your side. Here you're treating lives as fungible for the sake of it. It's not really an admirable thing to lack the ability to see why that's wrong, so I implore you to dig a little deeper. This isn't sacrificing people to help more people, it's helping people then sacrificing some people for fun. If you talk someone down from a ledge do you now go around thinking you get to murder someone and it cancels out? > If it was just marketing and looking cool that would be one thing. But it's also quite hard mentally to pay attention when everything is on auto. And it's a much nicer driving experience that's inherently dangerous no matter what the marketing says. So I don't think it's possible to have the convenience without the danger. You'd have to disable AP This is literally what every comment in this entire thread by me has said. Maybe you finally get it. Car without convenience features saves lives doesn't kill. Car with them saves same lives and kills.

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.

BoorishBears 6y ago
Here the car saves 100000 lives, but kills 5 people, when it could have just not killed the 5 people! And still saved the same 100000 lives! That's a problem! To any normal person, that's a problem. You're doing this weird math where actively murdering 5 people but saving 100000 is the same as just saving 99995, but it's not when the 5 murders were not a requirement to save 100000. Maybe your confusion is thinking the safety features are the ones doing the killing when they're not? It's extra trimmings built on top of the safety features that are doing the killing. In other words: > If it's still safer than a car without those features even after falling into the trap then my reaction is a big shrug. It's not safer! Because that sentence is about the convenience features are not the safety features! LKA, AEB, Crash avoidance, those all operate separately of the convenience features! And it's not a guess about how the internals work either, Tesla literally sells things like "Navigate on Autopilot" separately. It's really simple logic. The safety features save lives. The convenience features, by definition, cannot save lives that the safety ones didn't. When a Tesla avoids hitting a car coming into it's path, it's not because Navigate with Autopilot was on, it's the Active Safety Features function: https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot But when a Tesla hits a stopped firetruck after Autopilot lulled the driver into thinking they wouldn't have to brake, the active safety features can't do anything! Because the convenience features are subject to the same limitations as the active safety features. --- That's the crux of the issue that you keep missing. No one is saying the active safety features should save more lives, they're saying the convenience features need to stop tricking people into driving distracted. Because those people sometimes die in accidents that wouldn't have happened if they didn't have them. The safety features would still save the same number of people, just no one would die needless deaths in the name of marketing and looking cool.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > You're doing this weird math where actively murdering 5 people but saving 100000 is the same as just saving 99995, but it's not when the 5 murders were not a requirement to save 100000. I don't see it that way. It's a completely random set of people that die either way. And all the deaths basically boil down to "driving is dangerous". It's not one set of people being saved and a different one dying. It's all one group, so only the total number matters. > It's not safer! Because that sentence is about the convenience features are not the safety features! Your sentence was about that. My counterpoint was about more than that. I'll reword my point without the word safer: If the risk reduction from the safety features is bigger than the risk increase from the convenience features, I think things are acceptable. > The safety features save lives. The convenience features, by definition, cannot save lives that the safety ones didn't. I wasn't trying to say the convenience features saved lives. > No one is saying the active safety features should save more lives, they're saying the convenience features need to stop tricking people into driving distracted. I'm the one saying that safety features need to save a certain number of lives. And that number is "enough to make up for the risk caused by the convenience features". > Because those people sometimes die in accidents that wouldn't have happened if they didn't have them. Eh, someone that's distracted could easily die in similar accident in a dumb car. To me it's all risk vs. risk. Nobody is getting murdered by the car as some kind of sick trade-off. It's not a trolley problem. It's just undoing some of the safety. But undoing the safety is acceptable, just like a car that had none of those safety features (and none of those convenience features) would also be acceptable. > The safety features would still save the same number of people, just no one would die needless deaths in the name of marketing and looking cool. If it was just marketing and looking cool that would be one thing. But it's also quite hard mentally to pay attention when everything is on auto. And it's a much nicer driving experience that's inherently dangerous no matter what the marketing says. So I don't think it's possible to have the convenience without the danger. You'd have to disable AP.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    > It's all one group, so only the total number matters. You're very alone in this line of thought. If you save 100000 people _by murdering_ 5 people, it's unfortunate and a hard choice, but at least arguably good. Most people will be ok with this (this is pretty much how the world turns to some degree) But if you save 100000 lives, then murder 5 victims. And those 5 victims were just murdered to murder tham, no one being saved was resting on it. Most basically ethical people would consider that indefensible. Maybe you're confusing this situation with the former, where lives are treated as fungible to save great numbers. That can be tricky ethically, but at least the greater good is on your side. Here you're treating lives as fungible for the sake of it. It's not really an admirable thing to lack the ability to see why that's wrong, so I implore you to dig a little deeper. This isn't sacrificing people to help more people, it's helping people then sacrificing some people for fun. If you talk someone down from a ledge do you now go around thinking you get to murder someone and it cancels out? > If it was just marketing and looking cool that would be one thing. But it's also quite hard mentally to pay attention when everything is on auto. And it's a much nicer driving experience that's inherently dangerous no matter what the marketing says. So I don't think it's possible to have the convenience without the danger. You'd have to disable AP This is literally what every comment in this entire thread by me has said. Maybe you finally get it. Car without convenience features saves lives doesn't kill. Car with them saves same lives and kills.