4 ms·

The absolving argument that it's still the drivers responsibility to intervene has flown out of the window with this request. The federal safety agency is not h

by yawaworht1978 5y ago

The absolving argument that it's still the drivers responsibility to intervene has flown out of the window with this request. The federal safety agency is not having any of that excuse anymore. They might find that Tesla did no wrong here, further enabling Tesla to get away with this. But this looks a lot like they want to regulate the feature a bit more. If self regulation via companies and humans does not work, the government will step in. Curious to see the outcome, they haven't ordered the immediate disablement of the feature, they might have a neutral view.

duxup 5y ago
I suspect humans are really bad when they only have to sorta pay attention and it results in just not paying attention a great deal of the time. I'm not sure that's fixable on the human end.
- matt123456789 5y ago
  The question is, how much of that is Tesla’s fault? They’re an EV company, not a psychology consultancy. We don’t hold gun manufacturers or alcohol companies liable when people do stupid things with their products, despite the best efforts of their marketing divisions. Granted “pull trigger get bullet” is much simpler than the Autopilot response.
  - duxup 5y ago
    We ask airplane makers to make adjustments to better indicate problems / auto pilot status when humans don't do the right thing all the time. And that's for professionals who get tons of training. We have all sorts of car / road safety features because humans are bad at driving. We can't reprogram the humans, can change the environment they operate in.
  - SerLava 5y ago
    It's not "doing a stupid thing" though Fundamentally any life form has a slower reaction when they have to notice an issue and start to take motor control. Versus already being in control and simply not causing the issue. They are not just "an EV company" they are making a guidance system for thousands of high speed metal death machines. They BETTER consult some psychologists. This is a really bizarre thing to say.
    - matt123456789 5y ago
      You either misread my comment or you’re attacking a straw man argument. I said “they’re not a psychology consultancy”, NOT “I hope they don’t consult psychologists”.
      - SerLava 5y ago
        I didn't misread it at all. 1. You are trying to shift blame away from Tesla and onto the drivers 2. Tesla is doing the same thing by pretending not to understand the brains of carbon based life forms, hoping most people accept it on face value and don't think too hard. Placing the issue on individual psychology: "why did this guy shoot his own head on purpose, why did this guy drive drunk" instead of on fundamental human psychology: "oh surely the drivers will simply take over control instantly and without warning after staring straight and doing nothing for 2 hours" ...is the whole problem. They need to consult psychologists instead of crying that they aren't responsible for their own system design. So it's entirely Tesla's fault. They aren't making cars for Lt. Commander Data. They're making cars for human beings
  - mcguire 5y ago
    What happens if the liability belongs entirely to the customer? I suspect insurance would be quite expensive.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > We don’t hold gun manufacturers or alcohol companies liable when people do stupid things with their products I believe we would if the gun design meant it could fire when it wasn't supposed to or if random batches of the alcohol contained a toxic chemical but was label warning the consumer that it was up to them to figure out if the bottle they want to consume was safe. There's a big difference between users "do[ing] something stupid" and manufacturers "making something that puts unreasonable demands on the user to ensure safety."
  - lesuorac 5y ago
    > We don’t hold gun manufacturers or alcohol companies liable when people do stupid things with their products We do though. gun manufacturers sell firearms that need ~10lbs force to shoot (~2x normal) to law enforcement so keep accidental discharges down. alcohol companies maybe but there are "Alcohol Server Liability Laws" where a bar/etc can be held liable for damages caused by somebody who got drunk at their bar/etc.
  - deschutes 5y ago
    It's absolutely their fault. Folks have been saying from day 1 that aviation has dealt with this very problem. Telsa should know since they're trying to claim they mean autopilot in the technical rather than colloquial sense. The only reason they haven't faced that is because it's completely devestating to the technology they're trying to market.
- yawaworht1978 5y ago
  It's the counter thesis to the " i drive more alert when drunk" , I know what you mean. Might be that there is no in-between from full self driving and fully humanly operated. Of course, liability under the current state of affairs will always be on the human, but I think it might be reflected in insurance premiums one day where it becomes economically difficult to pay the premium. I agree, all the brands should be observed, Tesla simply has the largest attach surface currently, due to most media exposure and let's be honest, loudest and most misleading marketing strategies.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > I suspect humans are really bad when they only have to sorta pay attention and it results in just not paying attention a great deal of the time. Exactly, there were some pretty good 99% Invisible podcasts on that topic: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magenta-automation-paradox-pt-1/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magen... https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/johnnycab-automation-paradox-pt-2/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/johnnycab-automation-...
wingineer 5y ago
IMO this is a good thing, and should be applied to all manufacturers of driver-assist technology. Tesla has certainly been at the bleeding-edge of overly optimistic and confusing marketing for their product, but others should be on alert too.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Tesla has certainly been at the bleeding-edge of overly optimistic and confusing marketing for their product, but others should be on alert too. I think the word you're looking for is "dishonest."
  - wingineer 5y ago
    I personally agree with you.

duxup 5y ago

I suspect humans are really bad when they only have to sorta pay attention and it results in just not paying attention a great deal of the time. I'm not sure that's fixable on the human end.

matt123456789 5y ago
The question is, how much of that is Tesla’s fault? They’re an EV company, not a psychology consultancy. We don’t hold gun manufacturers or alcohol companies liable when people do stupid things with their products, despite the best efforts of their marketing divisions. Granted “pull trigger get bullet” is much simpler than the Autopilot response.
- duxup 5y ago
  We ask airplane makers to make adjustments to better indicate problems / auto pilot status when humans don't do the right thing all the time. And that's for professionals who get tons of training. We have all sorts of car / road safety features because humans are bad at driving. We can't reprogram the humans, can change the environment they operate in.
- SerLava 5y ago
  It's not "doing a stupid thing" though Fundamentally any life form has a slower reaction when they have to notice an issue and start to take motor control. Versus already being in control and simply not causing the issue. They are not just "an EV company" they are making a guidance system for thousands of high speed metal death machines. They BETTER consult some psychologists. This is a really bizarre thing to say.
  - matt123456789 5y ago
    You either misread my comment or you’re attacking a straw man argument. I said “they’re not a psychology consultancy”, NOT “I hope they don’t consult psychologists”.
    - SerLava 5y ago
      I didn't misread it at all. 1. You are trying to shift blame away from Tesla and onto the drivers 2. Tesla is doing the same thing by pretending not to understand the brains of carbon based life forms, hoping most people accept it on face value and don't think too hard. Placing the issue on individual psychology: "why did this guy shoot his own head on purpose, why did this guy drive drunk" instead of on fundamental human psychology: "oh surely the drivers will simply take over control instantly and without warning after staring straight and doing nothing for 2 hours" ...is the whole problem. They need to consult psychologists instead of crying that they aren't responsible for their own system design. So it's entirely Tesla's fault. They aren't making cars for Lt. Commander Data. They're making cars for human beings
- mcguire 5y ago
  What happens if the liability belongs entirely to the customer? I suspect insurance would be quite expensive.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > We don’t hold gun manufacturers or alcohol companies liable when people do stupid things with their products I believe we would if the gun design meant it could fire when it wasn't supposed to or if random batches of the alcohol contained a toxic chemical but was label warning the consumer that it was up to them to figure out if the bottle they want to consume was safe. There's a big difference between users "do[ing] something stupid" and manufacturers "making something that puts unreasonable demands on the user to ensure safety."
- lesuorac 5y ago
  > We don’t hold gun manufacturers or alcohol companies liable when people do stupid things with their products We do though. gun manufacturers sell firearms that need ~10lbs force to shoot (~2x normal) to law enforcement so keep accidental discharges down. alcohol companies maybe but there are "Alcohol Server Liability Laws" where a bar/etc can be held liable for damages caused by somebody who got drunk at their bar/etc.
- deschutes 5y ago
  It's absolutely their fault. Folks have been saying from day 1 that aviation has dealt with this very problem. Telsa should know since they're trying to claim they mean autopilot in the technical rather than colloquial sense. The only reason they haven't faced that is because it's completely devestating to the technology they're trying to market.
yawaworht1978 5y ago
It's the counter thesis to the " i drive more alert when drunk" , I know what you mean. Might be that there is no in-between from full self driving and fully humanly operated. Of course, liability under the current state of affairs will always be on the human, but I think it might be reflected in insurance premiums one day where it becomes economically difficult to pay the premium. I agree, all the brands should be observed, Tesla simply has the largest attach surface currently, due to most media exposure and let's be honest, loudest and most misleading marketing strategies.
tablespoon 5y ago
> I suspect humans are really bad when they only have to sorta pay attention and it results in just not paying attention a great deal of the time. Exactly, there were some pretty good 99% Invisible podcasts on that topic: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magenta-automation-paradox-pt-1/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magen... https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/johnnycab-automation-paradox-pt-2/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/johnnycab-automation-...

wingineer 5y ago

IMO this is a good thing, and should be applied to all manufacturers of driver-assist technology. Tesla has certainly been at the bleeding-edge of overly optimistic and confusing marketing for their product, but others should be on alert too.

tablespoon 5y ago
> Tesla has certainly been at the bleeding-edge of overly optimistic and confusing marketing for their product, but others should be on alert too. I think the word you're looking for is "dishonest."
- wingineer 5y ago
  I personally agree with you.