3 ms·

Why shouldn't it? Anyone can buy 500, 700, 1100hp, etc. RWD production cars and YouTube is covered in videos of people using them to cause destruction of proper

by yakz 5y ago

Why shouldn't it? Anyone can buy 500, 700, 1100hp, etc. RWD production cars and YouTube is covered in videos of people using them to cause destruction of property and injuries because they don't know what the car is going to do. These muscle cars, supercars, and hypercars require control inputs that are not necessarily intuitive and could be very surprising. At least Tesla is forcing people to go through a safety test first. These cars can be operated safely. If and when there is sufficient evidence that they can't, I expect things to change.

simion314 5y ago
You can't drive illegal for public road cars, so my point is why should a car that can randomly drive you into a child should be legal for public roads? Let's assume Elon and Tesla are perfect, you still need the law for less perfect CEOs and companies right? This less perfect ones might do bad things.
- npace12 5y ago
  Can't any car with a drive-by-wire technically just randomly drive into a child? Yeah, the fact that more unpredictable software is involved definitely increases the risk, but where exactly would the line be?
  - simion314 5y ago
    The line would be here IMO, let me know why you think different Step 1: you get some independent persons from the government (Tesla or Google, etc pays for this so no need to cry taxes) Step 2: you drive the cars in the area where you want to approve it for testing/production , you record all mistakes and times the car ahd to intervene Step 3: drive all year around, all weather conditions, all traffic conditions Step 4: you analyze the data, see how many times you had to intervene and compute the damages that would have occurred. Get some real statisticins that could put bounds around the damages. Using the data from 4 you ask the population to vote what is the correct value they are comfortable with. What Tesla is doing now do not match because: 1 the tests are not transparent, we don't know or we can't trust Tesla for the number of mistakes the AI is doing 2 updates invalidate previous tests and stats 3 the computer will not drive in all conditions and is differing harder parts of the road to the human so this also is screwing the stats, if you let the AI to drive the easy part and the human the hard part then for sure the AI has a good record. Even if Tesla is perfect you need this laws for the imperfect companies that would move fast... so think about this as laws that will protect you from the evil Google car or some Chinese brand
spicybright 5y ago
> If and when there is sufficient evidence that they can't, I expect things to change. Why should I let Tesla put my life at risk if they're not sure it can be operated safely? The burden of proof should be collecting evidence that they are safe, not waiting for data soaked in blood before pulling back. Any other company wouldn't be able to pull off this kind of scam like Tesla is doing.

by yakz 5y ago

simion314 5y ago

You can't drive illegal for public road cars, so my point is why should a car that can randomly drive you into a child should be legal for public roads? Let's assume Elon and Tesla are perfect, you still need the law for less perfect CEOs and companies right? This less perfect ones might do bad things.

npace12 5y ago
Can't any car with a drive-by-wire technically just randomly drive into a child? Yeah, the fact that more unpredictable software is involved definitely increases the risk, but where exactly would the line be?
- simion314 5y ago
  The line would be here IMO, let me know why you think different Step 1: you get some independent persons from the government (Tesla or Google, etc pays for this so no need to cry taxes) Step 2: you drive the cars in the area where you want to approve it for testing/production , you record all mistakes and times the car ahd to intervene Step 3: drive all year around, all weather conditions, all traffic conditions Step 4: you analyze the data, see how many times you had to intervene and compute the damages that would have occurred. Get some real statisticins that could put bounds around the damages. Using the data from 4 you ask the population to vote what is the correct value they are comfortable with. What Tesla is doing now do not match because: 1 the tests are not transparent, we don't know or we can't trust Tesla for the number of mistakes the AI is doing 2 updates invalidate previous tests and stats 3 the computer will not drive in all conditions and is differing harder parts of the road to the human so this also is screwing the stats, if you let the AI to drive the easy part and the human the hard part then for sure the AI has a good record. Even if Tesla is perfect you need this laws for the imperfect companies that would move fast... so think about this as laws that will protect you from the evil Google car or some Chinese brand

spicybright 5y ago

> If and when there is sufficient evidence that they can't, I expect things to change. Why should I let Tesla put my life at risk if they're not sure it can be operated safely? The burden of proof should be collecting evidence that they are safe, not waiting for data soaked in blood before pulling back. Any other company wouldn't be able to pull off this kind of scam like Tesla is doing.