3 ms·

A law doesn't prevent anything, it only applies after the fact. You could argue that the prospect of being prosecuted might scare people into not doing the thin

A law doesn't prevent anything, it only applies after the fact. You could argue that the prospect of being prosecuted might scare people into not doing the thing that they are not allowed to be doing, but with all the people doing the things they are not allowed to be doing anyway, I doubt a comparative legal argument helps here. You could make a law that states that your FSD has to be at least as good as humans. That means you have the same post-problem verification but now the parallel with drunk drivers can be made.

oefrha 5y ago
The key difference is human drivers have independent software, whereas the same software powers all FSD Teslas. One human driver getting drunk/otherwise impaired doesn't affect the software of any other human driver; but if your FSD software is as good as a drunk human, then every single one of your FSD vehicles is a road hazard.
- oneplane 5y ago
  That difference is also a benefit, fix one problem, and it's fixed for every instance. On the other hand, it's not like the software is always bad and always in the same situation. That is a big difference with a human analogy; a drunk driver taking a trip in the car is drunk for the entire trip (unless it's a very long trip etc..), so would be impaired for the entire duration. There are plenty of people and vehicles that are road hazards and are allowed to drive (or be driven) anyway, so if we really cared about that aspect on its own we could probably do with better tests and rules in general.
dundarious 5y ago
Tesla’s “FSD” is only a little bit better than drunk drivers, whom we punish severely whenever caught, even before any accident occurs. The fact that enforcement is patchy is irrelevant — drunk driving is deemed serious enough to be an automatic infraction. Also, most of the time drunk drivers are not actually that bad at moment-to-moment driving. That’s why almost everyone worldwide used to do it! You can still do the basics even when reasonably drunk. That doesn’t make you safe to drive. It’s still incredibly dangerous to do.
- oneplane 5y ago
  This assumes FSD-to-drunk-driver analogy means FSD has to be a drunk driver (or a student driver as commented elsewhere) all the time, so always making the bad judgement and slow reaction like a drunk driver would. I think that some form of responsibility has to be assigned to the FSD in some way (the manufacturer? the user? some other entity or a combination?) regardless but I haven't found any clear case of how that would work. It also makes me wonder how we would measure or verify a human driver with intermittent drunkenness. Imagine 5 seconds out of every minute you temporarily turn into a drunk driver. That's plenty of time to cause a major accident and kill people, but on the other hand that would mean that the combination of a situation where that would happen and the right timing to not be able to judge that situation has to apply. We do of course have the luxury of not having humans constantly swapping drunk and normal driving, so it isn't a realistic scenario, but it would make for a better computer analogy. Besides drunk drivers we also have just generally crappy drivers that just happened to get lucky when doing their driving test (although there are places where no meaningful test is required so that's a problem in itself).
  - dundarious 5y ago
    I think you’ve missed my point, while adding some additional information. - drunk drivers are also not uniformly awful drivers: they can drive OK for the most part - they still drive unacceptably poorly - we strictly punish them on detection, before any potential accident - drunk drivers and FSD have more in common with each other than competent drivers and FSD - why is FSD not held to such a preventative standard? One can argue that FSD is like a drunk driver driving a student training car with two sets of pedals and two steering wheels, and the Tesla owner/driver is like a driving instructor. But driving instructors are trained and paid to be quite vigilant at all times. Tesla play a sleight of hand and say it’s a labor saving technology, but also you need to be able to behave like a trained and paid driving instructor... that is a conspicuous contradiction. And I’m ignoring future FSD capabilities because while I’d be happy for it to come about, we should discuss the present situation first, and I don’t believe it’s a good example where sacrificing lives now is acceptable in order to potentially save lives in the future.

oefrha 5y ago

The key difference is human drivers have independent software, whereas the same software powers all FSD Teslas. One human driver getting drunk/otherwise impaired doesn't affect the software of any other human driver; but if your FSD software is as good as a drunk human, then every single one of your FSD vehicles is a road hazard.

oneplane 5y ago
That difference is also a benefit, fix one problem, and it's fixed for every instance. On the other hand, it's not like the software is always bad and always in the same situation. That is a big difference with a human analogy; a drunk driver taking a trip in the car is drunk for the entire trip (unless it's a very long trip etc..), so would be impaired for the entire duration. There are plenty of people and vehicles that are road hazards and are allowed to drive (or be driven) anyway, so if we really cared about that aspect on its own we could probably do with better tests and rules in general.

dundarious 5y ago

Tesla’s “FSD” is only a little bit better than drunk drivers, whom we punish severely whenever caught, even before any accident occurs. The fact that enforcement is patchy is irrelevant — drunk driving is deemed serious enough to be an automatic infraction. Also, most of the time drunk drivers are not actually that bad at moment-to-moment driving. That’s why almost everyone worldwide used to do it! You can still do the basics even when reasonably drunk. That doesn’t make you safe to drive. It’s still incredibly dangerous to do.

oneplane 5y ago
This assumes FSD-to-drunk-driver analogy means FSD has to be a drunk driver (or a student driver as commented elsewhere) all the time, so always making the bad judgement and slow reaction like a drunk driver would. I think that some form of responsibility has to be assigned to the FSD in some way (the manufacturer? the user? some other entity or a combination?) regardless but I haven't found any clear case of how that would work. It also makes me wonder how we would measure or verify a human driver with intermittent drunkenness. Imagine 5 seconds out of every minute you temporarily turn into a drunk driver. That's plenty of time to cause a major accident and kill people, but on the other hand that would mean that the combination of a situation where that would happen and the right timing to not be able to judge that situation has to apply. We do of course have the luxury of not having humans constantly swapping drunk and normal driving, so it isn't a realistic scenario, but it would make for a better computer analogy. Besides drunk drivers we also have just generally crappy drivers that just happened to get lucky when doing their driving test (although there are places where no meaningful test is required so that's a problem in itself).
- dundarious 5y ago
  I think you’ve missed my point, while adding some additional information. - drunk drivers are also not uniformly awful drivers: they can drive OK for the most part - they still drive unacceptably poorly - we strictly punish them on detection, before any potential accident - drunk drivers and FSD have more in common with each other than competent drivers and FSD - why is FSD not held to such a preventative standard? One can argue that FSD is like a drunk driver driving a student training car with two sets of pedals and two steering wheels, and the Tesla owner/driver is like a driving instructor. But driving instructors are trained and paid to be quite vigilant at all times. Tesla play a sleight of hand and say it’s a labor saving technology, but also you need to be able to behave like a trained and paid driving instructor... that is a conspicuous contradiction. And I’m ignoring future FSD capabilities because while I’d be happy for it to come about, we should discuss the present situation first, and I don’t believe it’s a good example where sacrificing lives now is acceptable in order to potentially save lives in the future.