6 ms·

Classic whataboutism. GM's irresponsible behavior doesn't excuse Tesla's irresponsible behavior.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
I don’t believe Autopilot, a robust driver assist system with substantial safeguards, is irresponsible (as someone who has used it for ~60k miles of travel). I do believe allowing people to die because you don’t want to replace a defective ignition switch is. That’s not whataboutism, it’s pointing out hypocrisy. NHTSA believes Autopilot is safe enough to continue to allow its use on public roads. What makes a random HN participant a superior authority on the topic than them? Is it materially unsafe because someone here asserts so without backing up their claim? These are not rhetorical questions. 3700 people die per day from auto accidents that are ~95% human error caused and 12 deaths total while Autopilot was active is irresponsible? Death is unavoidable, only preventable short term on a scale. To expect zero deaths is unreasonable.
- davewritescode 5y ago
  The big problem with Autopilot is the sleazy way it’s been marketed and sold to customers and regulators versus what the system really is. Charging folks $10k for an option with the CEO insisting that “full self driving” is shipping next year is borderline fraud. I won’t buy a GM product and I won’t buy a Tesla product either, happy?
  - bastawhiz 5y ago
    It's worth being precise about the terminology: Autopilot comes with the car (autosteer), FSD is what costs $10k extra. Conflating the two makes it harder to have a conversation about what either actually is or does.
    - dncornholio 5y ago
      But, they are both scams.
      - bastawhiz 5y ago
        Autopilot (name aside) does the same exact thing that most car manufacturers offer in luxury cars. So I'm not sure what part you think is a scam.
        dncornholio 5y ago
        You just have answered your own question :)
onethought 5y ago
It's not whataboutism. - Autopilot has been "on" during 12 fatal crashes. It's a level 2 driver assist so it isn't "responsible" for those deaths, the driver is. Autopilot data shows it improves safety. Could you explain the unethical part? - The ignition recall, GM knew it was a problem, and it was. The unethical part is super clear. These aren't equivalent at all. Actually this highlights the bad faith attacks on Tesla. There are reasonable controversial decisions to be discussed with Tesla's approach. But safety isn't one of them, they have the safest cars on the roads and the lowest crash/fatality rate.
- bombcar 5y ago
  I think they’re referring to the “rolling stop” code Tesla added - which is technically an illegal maneuver but not one resulting in death as far as I know. Autodrive is going to force the actual law and the theoretical law to come into sync, otherwise automatic driving cars will cause other issues by sticking to the letter of the law when normal drivers do not.
  - onethought 5y ago
    It is definitely not "unethical" to have an AV drive just like a human does... Unlawful, perhaps.
    - mbg721 5y ago
      When programming an AV to drive like a human does, are the programmers including all the contextual human judgement that goes along with the human decisions, or just throwing away the letter of the law because it's too much trouble? I have a hard time explaining to a human teenager the etiquette that goes along with something like merging onto a highway, and it varies by region.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

I don’t believe Autopilot, a robust driver assist system with substantial safeguards, is irresponsible (as someone who has used it for ~60k miles of travel). I do believe allowing people to die because you don’t want to replace a defective ignition switch is. That’s not whataboutism, it’s pointing out hypocrisy. NHTSA believes Autopilot is safe enough to continue to allow its use on public roads. What makes a random HN participant a superior authority on the topic than them? Is it materially unsafe because someone here asserts so without backing up their claim? These are not rhetorical questions. 3700 people die per day from auto accidents that are ~95% human error caused and 12 deaths total while Autopilot was active is irresponsible? Death is unavoidable, only preventable short term on a scale. To expect zero deaths is unreasonable.

davewritescode 5y ago
The big problem with Autopilot is the sleazy way it’s been marketed and sold to customers and regulators versus what the system really is. Charging folks $10k for an option with the CEO insisting that “full self driving” is shipping next year is borderline fraud. I won’t buy a GM product and I won’t buy a Tesla product either, happy?
- bastawhiz 5y ago
  It's worth being precise about the terminology: Autopilot comes with the car (autosteer), FSD is what costs $10k extra. Conflating the two makes it harder to have a conversation about what either actually is or does.
  - dncornholio 5y ago
    But, they are both scams.
    - bastawhiz 5y ago
      Autopilot (name aside) does the same exact thing that most car manufacturers offer in luxury cars. So I'm not sure what part you think is a scam.
      - dncornholio 5y ago
        You just have answered your own question :)

onethought 5y ago

It's not whataboutism. - Autopilot has been "on" during 12 fatal crashes. It's a level 2 driver assist so it isn't "responsible" for those deaths, the driver is. Autopilot data shows it improves safety. Could you explain the unethical part? - The ignition recall, GM knew it was a problem, and it was. The unethical part is super clear. These aren't equivalent at all. Actually this highlights the bad faith attacks on Tesla. There are reasonable controversial decisions to be discussed with Tesla's approach. But safety isn't one of them, they have the safest cars on the roads and the lowest crash/fatality rate.

bombcar 5y ago
I think they’re referring to the “rolling stop” code Tesla added - which is technically an illegal maneuver but not one resulting in death as far as I know. Autodrive is going to force the actual law and the theoretical law to come into sync, otherwise automatic driving cars will cause other issues by sticking to the letter of the law when normal drivers do not.
- onethought 5y ago
  It is definitely not "unethical" to have an AV drive just like a human does... Unlawful, perhaps.
  - mbg721 5y ago
    When programming an AV to drive like a human does, are the programmers including all the contextual human judgement that goes along with the human decisions, or just throwing away the letter of the law because it's too much trouble? I have a hard time explaining to a human teenager the etiquette that goes along with something like merging onto a highway, and it varies by region.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]