41 ms·

No idea why you had to tout out that you had a PhD when I was pointing out that you were not a user. Well news flash, I did my PhD in EECS with a focus on Perce

No idea why you had to tout out that you had a PhD when I was pointing out that you were not a user. Well news flash, I did my PhD in EECS with a focus on Perception and Autonomous Vehicle Applications from a top 4 CS school and so did most people in Autopilot (Most are from Stanford, Berkeley or CMU in Tesla AP), in fact I worked with people who were a part of the 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge who are in Autopilot now and I can assure you they think as deeply about safety as you claim you are. (I did not want to default to an argument of authority, but you made it that). I do in fact sleep soundly, knowing I don't call engineers murderers on online forums. The 2019 and 2016 case you're talking about engaged Autopilot not FSD Beta (The 2019 crash did it just 10 seconds before the crash). Autopilot is glorified cruise control, it maintains a distance to the car in front of you, does not avoid obstacles, is not meant to break unless there are exceptional circumstances or do anything really beyond following the lane. Independent testing by both the NHTSA and the EURO NCAP authority have given Tesla Autopilot the highest safety rating recorded by any car, so it is the safest cruise control among competitors, but it is a cruise control where crashes happen. Its not FSD. There has been only 1 case under FSD Beta under investigation by NHTSA, and that occurred in 2021, that is going on in the courts, I do expect Tesla to win that case, but let's see. That case involved damage to the car and no injuries or deaths reported. Also I edited the comment to make it smaller, I did not see your reply before editing my comment. I can revert it if you wish.

ModernMech 4y ago
I've calmed down after your "heads will roll" comment so I promise to be civil. To continue. Yes, you should put back your original comment to reduce confusion. I'm fine reading a long comment. > No idea why you had to tout out that you had a PhD when I was pointing out that you were not a user. You said: And then we have bystanders like you with no understanding of what’s actually going on, who want to ban everybody from using Autopilot because you think drunk people are using Autopilot or something. Which I took to mean you assumed I was a nonpractitioner who didn't know what I was talking about. I know you work at Tesla, so I know your credentials. Since you seemed so eager to dismiss me as a "bystander", my only point in telling you about my background wasn't to threaten you with it or to assert an unquestionable authority, but to inform you that I have the necessary experience and education to fully understand all the complexities you think are beyond my comprehension. I am not a "bystander", and while I do not own a Tesla (because of course I don't), that doesn't set you up to dismiss my point of view as uninformed. You can communicate to me as a peer, not a "bystander". > (Most are from Stanford, Berkeley or CMU in Tesla AP) Absolutely, I've gone to school with some of those people. I've been taught by some of those people. I've also taught some of the people you work with. I don't know who you are, but I know you know better, or at least your colleagues do. Which is why this is so especially painful for me. > I can assure you they think as deeply about safety as you claim you are. Do they though? Because... again, you're building a product that allows people to drive around town fucking in their car. I notice you didn't address that at all in your reply. What does your team have to say about that, and when will this be banned? Why did your team release "beta" quality hardware and software onto public streets? Why wasn't the public consulted? By the tone of your earlier comment about drunk drivers, it seems to imply that you think drunk people driving Teslas is beyond the pale. And yet, what do you say about people fucking in their Teslas? That's happening. Isn't that just as dangerous as drunk driving, if not more so? It's really easy to say you're thinking deeply about these things, but that seems to be as far as the consideration goes when looking at how your product is being used in reality. You didn't think enough about it that you realized the camera sensors on the AP system would be overwhelmed by a bright white obstruction, and it would cause the AP system to run into it at full speed. You didn't think enough about it to have robust sensing to overcome a single sensor being overwhelmed. Yet you shipped that to the public, and then someone died due to the lack of consideration of that failure mode by your company. To me, it seems like your company's decisions are based purely on maintaining a competitive edge by being a market leader and aggressively pushing unfinished products onto the general and unsuspecting public. Can you please outline the ethical framework you used to arrive at this decision? Please don't tell me it was "We need this as fast as possible to save as many lives in the future, short term casualties are a necessary evil for the greater good." > I do in fact sleep soundly, knowing I don't call engineers murderers on online forums. Thanks for confirming my expectations. I figured as much. I figured you had no problem with the fact that your product decapitated someone, and then your company did literally nothing about it for 3 years, leading to it happening again. For the sake of your sleep, I'm glad you're able to rationalize these decapitations as "it was just a glorified cruise control" as if it's the user's fault. Maybe the first time. But the second one is on your company. But to be clear I didn't call you personally a murderer; I literally said you're not responsible. But the thing you built is directly responsible. Your team is responsible for releasing these things into communities, which you yourself admit are beta quality. That's something you chose to do. Engineers must be held accountable when the things they engineer hurt people, otherwise they will engineer things that hurt people. If you haven't realized it yet, this whole feeling I have really about you but your company, so don't take what I'm saying personally, unless in fact you do feel your personal work had contributed to these people's deaths.
- sashank_1509 4y ago
  Again I did in fact open pornhub when you point it out and that’s Tesla Autopilot not FSD. I do find it beyond the pale that people drunk use FSD, because there are very strict controls for people using FSD. Autopilot is advanced cruise control, apart from regulatory authorities saying it’s safe compared to competitors, Tesla releases quarterly safety reports since 2019 counting the incidents with Autopilot. It is shown to be safer than humans behind the wheel by quite a margin. Critics will point out, that Tesla AP users are old and most accidents are done by teenagers, AP is used on freeways while accidents are more common in city streets etc but in my view that’s still fine. It shows even the AP users are reasonable responsible. The real risk comes when you have FSD, that takes complete control over your car crash and even worse if it crashes while the user is trying to prevent one. I don’t think the latter is possible, because the software cedes control to the user instantaneously. There is a risk of users being too careless with FSD, which is why people we put quite some effort to getting rid of such users quickly. As I mentioned there are no deaths with FSD, just one case in 2021 being investigated by NHTSA.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > Autopilot is advanced cruise control, apart from regulatory authorities saying it’s safe compared to competitors, Tesla releases quarterly safety reports since 2019 counting the incidents with Autopilot. So what did you do to fix the issue? Why did a second person die in the same exact way as the first person after 3 years? Were you working on the fix at all? Or did you do nothing? Just admit it if you did nothing in response to that decapitation. You say "It's Autopilot, not FSD" as if that absolves Tesla of anything. Your marketing does not change my opinion of your technologies. It doesn't change that FSD and AP both have glaring technological flaws, doesn't change the fact that FSD is beta-quality hardware and software being tested on the general public, something the public did not agree to. It doesn't change the fact that even though they didn't agree to it, you unilaterally decided it was okay to conduct a beta test involving us. That's a huge ethical problem, and the fact you don't even see it as such blows a hole in your insistence that your colleagues take safety seriously. It doesn't matter. I understand why you think it absolves you; because you feel that the technology is similar enough to others out there, that it's just an incremental step, and so how can Tesla be held responsible when people make a career out of fucking in their car using that technology? How can Tesla be held responsible when multiple people lose their heads due to poor choices in sensor design? Correct me if I'm off base. Why is the AP/FSD distinction so important to you? How do you not realize it's your entire company's fault there was no other orthogonal sensor to see the tractor trailer? How do you not realize it's your entire company's fault people out there feel safe enough to use your product to watch Harry Potter or fuck while while flying down the highway, using what you call "glorified cruise control"? That's what you say it is to me, your peer, but to them you've said it was "AutoPilot (TM)". Why didn't you call it "Glorified Cruise Control" or just "Cruise Control"? That's not on them, that's on you for unleashing this technology on us. People are always going to watch movies and fuck. That they're doing so in your beta-quality robot menace to society is not their fault. Your company specifically conditioned them to think it was okay to do this in a Tesla. > It is shown to be safer than humans behind the wheel by quite a margin. The passive voice is doing a lot of work here. > There is a risk of users being too careless with FSD, which is why people we put quite some effort to getting rid of such users quickly. Again, this just goes to show how Tesla, in fact, is not concerned about safety and security, but instead are laser focused on market dominance and pushing technology on us as fast as possible. Tesla is a look before you leap, shoot first and ask questions later kind of company. Or as I said, move fast and break things (or in this case, "put quite some effort" to patch them up after the fact). This is a brand new technology and Tesla is rushing it out to the public as fast as humanly possible, selling it in beta quality before the technology and software is even ready. And you're telling me now that you screen users for bad behavior and ban them after the fact. It just goes to show you're treating this as some grand social experiment you feel you have the right to run on the rest of us. Yes people are going to watch movies in their cars. They're going to fuck. Yes they will be drunk and asleep. The problem is that you don't seem to care that your customers are using your products to do all these things, and it's over the course of years.

ModernMech 4y ago

I've calmed down after your "heads will roll" comment so I promise to be civil. To continue. Yes, you should put back your original comment to reduce confusion. I'm fine reading a long comment. > No idea why you had to tout out that you had a PhD when I was pointing out that you were not a user. You said: And then we have bystanders like you with no understanding of what’s actually going on, who want to ban everybody from using Autopilot because you think drunk people are using Autopilot or something. Which I took to mean you assumed I was a nonpractitioner who didn't know what I was talking about. I know you work at Tesla, so I know your credentials. Since you seemed so eager to dismiss me as a "bystander", my only point in telling you about my background wasn't to threaten you with it or to assert an unquestionable authority, but to inform you that I have the necessary experience and education to fully understand all the complexities you think are beyond my comprehension. I am not a "bystander", and while I do not own a Tesla (because of course I don't), that doesn't set you up to dismiss my point of view as uninformed. You can communicate to me as a peer, not a "bystander". > (Most are from Stanford, Berkeley or CMU in Tesla AP) Absolutely, I've gone to school with some of those people. I've been taught by some of those people. I've also taught some of the people you work with. I don't know who you are, but I know you know better, or at least your colleagues do. Which is why this is so especially painful for me. > I can assure you they think as deeply about safety as you claim you are. Do they though? Because... again, you're building a product that allows people to drive around town fucking in their car. I notice you didn't address that at all in your reply. What does your team have to say about that, and when will this be banned? Why did your team release "beta" quality hardware and software onto public streets? Why wasn't the public consulted? By the tone of your earlier comment about drunk drivers, it seems to imply that you think drunk people driving Teslas is beyond the pale. And yet, what do you say about people fucking in their Teslas? That's happening. Isn't that just as dangerous as drunk driving, if not more so? It's really easy to say you're thinking deeply about these things, but that seems to be as far as the consideration goes when looking at how your product is being used in reality. You didn't think enough about it that you realized the camera sensors on the AP system would be overwhelmed by a bright white obstruction, and it would cause the AP system to run into it at full speed. You didn't think enough about it to have robust sensing to overcome a single sensor being overwhelmed. Yet you shipped that to the public, and then someone died due to the lack of consideration of that failure mode by your company. To me, it seems like your company's decisions are based purely on maintaining a competitive edge by being a market leader and aggressively pushing unfinished products onto the general and unsuspecting public. Can you please outline the ethical framework you used to arrive at this decision? Please don't tell me it was "We need this as fast as possible to save as many lives in the future, short term casualties are a necessary evil for the greater good." > I do in fact sleep soundly, knowing I don't call engineers murderers on online forums. Thanks for confirming my expectations. I figured as much. I figured you had no problem with the fact that your product decapitated someone, and then your company did literally nothing about it for 3 years, leading to it happening again. For the sake of your sleep, I'm glad you're able to rationalize these decapitations as "it was just a glorified cruise control" as if it's the user's fault. Maybe the first time. But the second one is on your company. But to be clear I didn't call you personally a murderer; I literally said you're not responsible. But the thing you built is directly responsible. Your team is responsible for releasing these things into communities, which you yourself admit are beta quality. That's something you chose to do. Engineers must be held accountable when the things they engineer hurt people, otherwise they will engineer things that hurt people. If you haven't realized it yet, this whole feeling I have really about you but your company, so don't take what I'm saying personally, unless in fact you do feel your personal work had contributed to these people's deaths.

sashank_1509 4y ago
Again I did in fact open pornhub when you point it out and that’s Tesla Autopilot not FSD. I do find it beyond the pale that people drunk use FSD, because there are very strict controls for people using FSD. Autopilot is advanced cruise control, apart from regulatory authorities saying it’s safe compared to competitors, Tesla releases quarterly safety reports since 2019 counting the incidents with Autopilot. It is shown to be safer than humans behind the wheel by quite a margin. Critics will point out, that Tesla AP users are old and most accidents are done by teenagers, AP is used on freeways while accidents are more common in city streets etc but in my view that’s still fine. It shows even the AP users are reasonable responsible. The real risk comes when you have FSD, that takes complete control over your car crash and even worse if it crashes while the user is trying to prevent one. I don’t think the latter is possible, because the software cedes control to the user instantaneously. There is a risk of users being too careless with FSD, which is why people we put quite some effort to getting rid of such users quickly. As I mentioned there are no deaths with FSD, just one case in 2021 being investigated by NHTSA.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > Autopilot is advanced cruise control, apart from regulatory authorities saying it’s safe compared to competitors, Tesla releases quarterly safety reports since 2019 counting the incidents with Autopilot. So what did you do to fix the issue? Why did a second person die in the same exact way as the first person after 3 years? Were you working on the fix at all? Or did you do nothing? Just admit it if you did nothing in response to that decapitation. You say "It's Autopilot, not FSD" as if that absolves Tesla of anything. Your marketing does not change my opinion of your technologies. It doesn't change that FSD and AP both have glaring technological flaws, doesn't change the fact that FSD is beta-quality hardware and software being tested on the general public, something the public did not agree to. It doesn't change the fact that even though they didn't agree to it, you unilaterally decided it was okay to conduct a beta test involving us. That's a huge ethical problem, and the fact you don't even see it as such blows a hole in your insistence that your colleagues take safety seriously. It doesn't matter. I understand why you think it absolves you; because you feel that the technology is similar enough to others out there, that it's just an incremental step, and so how can Tesla be held responsible when people make a career out of fucking in their car using that technology? How can Tesla be held responsible when multiple people lose their heads due to poor choices in sensor design? Correct me if I'm off base. Why is the AP/FSD distinction so important to you? How do you not realize it's your entire company's fault there was no other orthogonal sensor to see the tractor trailer? How do you not realize it's your entire company's fault people out there feel safe enough to use your product to watch Harry Potter or fuck while while flying down the highway, using what you call "glorified cruise control"? That's what you say it is to me, your peer, but to them you've said it was "AutoPilot (TM)". Why didn't you call it "Glorified Cruise Control" or just "Cruise Control"? That's not on them, that's on you for unleashing this technology on us. People are always going to watch movies and fuck. That they're doing so in your beta-quality robot menace to society is not their fault. Your company specifically conditioned them to think it was okay to do this in a Tesla. > It is shown to be safer than humans behind the wheel by quite a margin. The passive voice is doing a lot of work here. > There is a risk of users being too careless with FSD, which is why people we put quite some effort to getting rid of such users quickly. Again, this just goes to show how Tesla, in fact, is not concerned about safety and security, but instead are laser focused on market dominance and pushing technology on us as fast as possible. Tesla is a look before you leap, shoot first and ask questions later kind of company. Or as I said, move fast and break things (or in this case, "put quite some effort" to patch them up after the fact). This is a brand new technology and Tesla is rushing it out to the public as fast as humanly possible, selling it in beta quality before the technology and software is even ready. And you're telling me now that you screen users for bad behavior and ban them after the fact. It just goes to show you're treating this as some grand social experiment you feel you have the right to run on the rest of us. Yes people are going to watch movies in their cars. They're going to fuck. Yes they will be drunk and asleep. The problem is that you don't seem to care that your customers are using your products to do all these things, and it's over the course of years.