4 ms·

40,000 people die in car crashes every year in the US alone. If the lord farquad approach brings widespread autonomous car adoption which decreases that number

40,000 people die in car crashes every year in the US alone. If the lord farquad approach brings widespread autonomous car adoption which decreases that number substantially even a month sooner it's the right thing to do. Many of us are already dying.

46756e 5y ago
Many people die of HIV, it’s a plague on society. If we just killed everyone who has it, it would be gone. Many of “us” are already dying, and it saves lives in the future. /s
ModernMech 5y ago
Sorry, but I don't see how a company that... - Beta tests critical software in the public which has lead to actual customer deaths; - Refuses to follow industry best practices when it comes to safety sensors; - Refuses to seriously investigate safety incidents and implement technological and cultural fixes to prevent them from happening in the future; ...will lead us into a utopia of automotive safety. At best what they're liable to do is create a climate where mega corporations feel free to use public spaces as their own personal laboratories, because the ends justify the means after all (don't pay attention to the decapitations, we're doing it for the safety of us all). We will all pay the price for that.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  I agree it would require an incredible amount of evidence to convince me that this actually would speed up the development of self driving. Just saying that I'm not opposed to the lord farquad method if it helps.
- randoglando 5y ago
  Don't forget to add - willfully misrepresents data to imply a better safety record than they actually do have https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1488673180403191808 https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1488673180403191808 (I've posted this elsewhere on this thread too)
lolinder 5y ago
The ethical problem with Lord Farquad's line isn't that "some of you will die". It's where he says "but that is a sacrifice that I am willing to make". Tesla's self-driving beta is unethical because most of the participants in this "experiment" did not opt in. Most of the people killed by Tesla won't be their customers. It will be the cyclist or the pedestrian that gets killed because the driver thought "full self driving" meant the car was fully driving itself. They didn't even know they were part of an experiment that day, yet they were the sacrifice that Tesla was willing to make.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  I'm sympathetic to that, but in the end don't trust people to make decisions that are in everyone's best interest. Americans especially have proven again and again that they are too blinded by the false ideals of rugged individualism to see what's right. What's unethical is allowing tens of thousands of people to die every year because some people have a (understandably)misguided view of right and wrong.
  - lolinder 5y ago
    Can you clarify how those of us calling for the government to prevent Tesla from involuntarily enlisting drivers into their beta test are "blinded by the false ideals of rugged individualism"? Just so we're talking about the same term: > The belief that all individuals, or nearly all individuals, can succeed on their own and that government help for people should be minimal. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rugged-individualism https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rugged-individualism Typically, the rugged individualists are the ones who say that the government should stay out of all this and people can take care of themselves. Basically the opposite of what I'm saying.
    - colinmhayes 5y ago
      Sometimes sacrifices need to be made so that we can all prosper. The American mythos is unfortunately allergic to this truism. The idea that society needs permission to better itself is misguided. Same reason America is lagging in vaccination rate even though we are the society with most access. I'd be extremely happy if people could come to the correct conclusion themselves. I don't want to allow their failure to harm the rest of us.

46756e 5y ago

Many people die of HIV, it’s a plague on society. If we just killed everyone who has it, it would be gone. Many of “us” are already dying, and it saves lives in the future. /s

ModernMech 5y ago

Sorry, but I don't see how a company that... - Beta tests critical software in the public which has lead to actual customer deaths; - Refuses to follow industry best practices when it comes to safety sensors; - Refuses to seriously investigate safety incidents and implement technological and cultural fixes to prevent them from happening in the future; ...will lead us into a utopia of automotive safety. At best what they're liable to do is create a climate where mega corporations feel free to use public spaces as their own personal laboratories, because the ends justify the means after all (don't pay attention to the decapitations, we're doing it for the safety of us all). We will all pay the price for that.

colinmhayes 5y ago
I agree it would require an incredible amount of evidence to convince me that this actually would speed up the development of self driving. Just saying that I'm not opposed to the lord farquad method if it helps.
randoglando 5y ago
Don't forget to add - willfully misrepresents data to imply a better safety record than they actually do have https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1488673180403191808 https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1488673180403191808 (I've posted this elsewhere on this thread too)

lolinder 5y ago

The ethical problem with Lord Farquad's line isn't that "some of you will die". It's where he says "but that is a sacrifice that I am willing to make". Tesla's self-driving beta is unethical because most of the participants in this "experiment" did not opt in. Most of the people killed by Tesla won't be their customers. It will be the cyclist or the pedestrian that gets killed because the driver thought "full self driving" meant the car was fully driving itself. They didn't even know they were part of an experiment that day, yet they were the sacrifice that Tesla was willing to make.

colinmhayes 5y ago
I'm sympathetic to that, but in the end don't trust people to make decisions that are in everyone's best interest. Americans especially have proven again and again that they are too blinded by the false ideals of rugged individualism to see what's right. What's unethical is allowing tens of thousands of people to die every year because some people have a (understandably)misguided view of right and wrong.
- lolinder 5y ago
  Can you clarify how those of us calling for the government to prevent Tesla from involuntarily enlisting drivers into their beta test are "blinded by the false ideals of rugged individualism"? Just so we're talking about the same term: > The belief that all individuals, or nearly all individuals, can succeed on their own and that government help for people should be minimal. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rugged-individualism https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rugged-individualism Typically, the rugged individualists are the ones who say that the government should stay out of all this and people can take care of themselves. Basically the opposite of what I'm saying.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    Sometimes sacrifices need to be made so that we can all prosper. The American mythos is unfortunately allergic to this truism. The idea that society needs permission to better itself is misguided. Same reason America is lagging in vaccination rate even though we are the society with most access. I'd be extremely happy if people could come to the correct conclusion themselves. I don't want to allow their failure to harm the rest of us.