4 ms·
"Move fast and break things" isn't entirely inappropriate in the world of non-consequential software, i.e. software not affecting lives or money. But for softwa
by taylodl 4y ago
"Move fast and break things" isn't entirely inappropriate in the world of non-consequential software, i.e. software not affecting lives or money. But for software affecting lives (people could die) or money (deposits and transfers could go awry) then "move fast and break things" is unethical. Obviously this bit would apply to things such as cars and airplanes, too. You really don't want us building the controls of a nuclear power plant, do you? Probably not.
I'm appalled the NTSB hasn't reigned in Tesla. I'm cynical enough to start wondering what officials they've "bought off."
- programmarchy 4y agoWould it be unethical if FSD Beta causes 1,000 fatalities but FSD 1.0 prevents 1,000,000 fatalities? Real world training data is needed to get from Beta to 1.0. Seems like you are oversimplifying the ethical decision being made by NTSB.
- taylodl 4y agoI'm not interested in dying for Tesla. Real people, innocent people doing nothing wrong, have been killed. It's past time to stop this madness.
- AlotOfReading 4y agoTwo points: 1) Tesla hasn't demonstrated that future hypothetical, so it's a speculative argument at best. 2) It's still unethical if they could have achieved that more safely by following industry norms and best practices, which they consistently fail to implement. Tesla could hire safety drivers for testing before public releases, but they don't. They could implement more redundancy to mitigate SPOF, but they don't. They could file the same regulatory paperwork others do (insufficient as that is), but they don't do that either. They don't even use industry standard terminology and safety concepts like ODDs.