4 ms·

> get away with [...] products that can kill people if your moral premise is saving lives, your conclusion does not follow. vehicles are a leading cause of dea

> get away with [...] products that can kill people if your moral premise is saving lives, your conclusion does not follow. vehicles are a leading cause of death and injury, so this omelette is worth breaking a few eggs, no? AV has the potential to save a lot of lives. of course, there will be effects in other markets like insurance, new car sales, road repair, junk/salvage yards, tow trucks, etc. what the net economic effect will be is up for debate.

mdorazio 6y ago
You're assuming eggs need to be broken in the first place, which is not at all proven. There are more options than what Tesla is doing - just look at Waymo as a counterexample of actually prioritizing safety over public release speed.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  If you want the amount of data necessary you do need miles driven. The millions of extra miles may very well be what it takes to put tesla over the edge. Sure you can do that in a controlled environment, but it would take a lot longer, and people would die in the mean time.
  - justapassenger 6y ago
    This argument makes sense, if you can assume that Tesla will actually deliver functional FSD system as a direct result of their approach. There's no data to support it.
- stickfigure 6y ago
  You're claiming "even though Tesla's self driving might be better/safer than human driving today, and will in aggregate save lives over the present state, there's this other approach which could save even more lives!" It's not certain that Waymo's approach will be better, especially at scale (and in cities other than Phoenix). We don't have that kind of data yet. And even if it is better, Tesla's approach is still a pareto improvement over now. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
    Shortcuts don't necessarily get you there sooner either. Tesla's approach might be risk without the reward. It's not a deaths-vs-FSD-date dial you can just turn (not even a dial you have to turn).
nostrademons 6y ago
False dichotomy fallacy. AVs are great. There's a way to test them that doesn't involve killing people: you put a safety driver in the car, make sure that they're attentive at all times, and record what the car's software does vs. what the driver has to do. Then you gradually ramp up to more sophisticated scenarios as the software gets better. Waymo and Cruise do it this way, and their software gets better without killing anyone. Uber and Tesla figured they'd play it fast and loose and killed people.
cycomanic 6y ago
Well if it is worth that eggs get broken then it should at least be Tesla paying for it no? They seem to want to have it all, advertise their product as autopilot (not drive assist), use their customers and everyone else as Guinea pigs and take the data to improve their systems, but if things happen it's the drivers fault for not being attentive and they have to take financial (and moral) responsibility. If they really thought some eggs need to be broken to get _their_(because they are using the data nobody else) systems up to speed, they could just come forward and say it and more importantly pay for the consequences.
tsimionescu 6y ago
AV has that potential in principle, sure. It hasn't realized it yet, particularly in Tesla's implementation.

mdorazio 6y ago

You're assuming eggs need to be broken in the first place, which is not at all proven. There are more options than what Tesla is doing - just look at Waymo as a counterexample of actually prioritizing safety over public release speed.

colinmhayes 6y ago
If you want the amount of data necessary you do need miles driven. The millions of extra miles may very well be what it takes to put tesla over the edge. Sure you can do that in a controlled environment, but it would take a lot longer, and people would die in the mean time.
- justapassenger 6y ago
  This argument makes sense, if you can assume that Tesla will actually deliver functional FSD system as a direct result of their approach. There's no data to support it.
stickfigure 6y ago
You're claiming "even though Tesla's self driving might be better/safer than human driving today, and will in aggregate save lives over the present state, there's this other approach which could save even more lives!" It's not certain that Waymo's approach will be better, especially at scale (and in cities other than Phoenix). We don't have that kind of data yet. And even if it is better, Tesla's approach is still a pareto improvement over now. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  Shortcuts don't necessarily get you there sooner either. Tesla's approach might be risk without the reward. It's not a deaths-vs-FSD-date dial you can just turn (not even a dial you have to turn).

nostrademons 6y ago

False dichotomy fallacy. AVs are great. There's a way to test them that doesn't involve killing people: you put a safety driver in the car, make sure that they're attentive at all times, and record what the car's software does vs. what the driver has to do. Then you gradually ramp up to more sophisticated scenarios as the software gets better. Waymo and Cruise do it this way, and their software gets better without killing anyone. Uber and Tesla figured they'd play it fast and loose and killed people.

cycomanic 6y ago

Well if it is worth that eggs get broken then it should at least be Tesla paying for it no? They seem to want to have it all, advertise their product as autopilot (not drive assist), use their customers and everyone else as Guinea pigs and take the data to improve their systems, but if things happen it's the drivers fault for not being attentive and they have to take financial (and moral) responsibility. If they really thought some eggs need to be broken to get _their_(because they are using the data nobody else) systems up to speed, they could just come forward and say it and more importantly pay for the consequences.

tsimionescu 6y ago

AV has that potential in principle, sure. It hasn't realized it yet, particularly in Tesla's implementation.