> I thought it was telling that Andrej immediately "reframed" the question because Lex asked the "wrong question". This is a classic evasion technique I agree

> I thought it was telling that Andrej immediately "reframed" the question because Lex asked the "wrong question". This is a classic evasion technique I agree with this assessment. However: > Telsa can't support additional sensors without incurring a prohibitive amount of additional risk to Tesla. Risk to passengers doesn't appear to be a consideration. This is a stupidifying take. Of course when you work in a line of business producing gadgets that, as an unintended side-effect, kill a lot of people (napkin math suggests above 2 milli-kills per car in the US), you will need to pick a point at which you say further fatality reduction is no longer justified given the economic cost of achieving it. Even if you are a pure altruist (if you go out of business, less safe cars will replace yours). Conversely, even if you are the embodiment of capitalist evil, risks to passengers will absolutely affect your bottom line and if are rational you will take them into consideration. Any meaningful criticism needs to be about the trade-offs they make, not that they make them or are loath to explicitly say so on camera.