4 ms·

> Tesla should be the one providing the data showing that it is safe for their software to be on the road The linked article is literally about the data Tesla

by ajross 4y ago

> Tesla should be the one providing the data showing that it is safe for their software to be on the road The linked article is literally about the data Tesla provides showing that their vehicles are safe, and it doesn't even refute the conclusions. It's about nitpicking at the margins. To be clear: Tesla's data says autopilot use is about an order of magnitude safer than human driving. The author complains that this is confounded by the fact that AP is used in different conditions where the baseline accident rate is lower. You need a lot of confounding effect to make up for an order of magnitude delta! Seems like everyone wants to skip that part and yell about the CEO instead. The cars are safe. They are extremely common vehicles now. If they were unsafe we would know. We know they are safe. Any argument needs to treat with this truth, or it's basically just a conspiracy theory.

ra7 4y ago
> It's about nitpicking at the margins. The article is not nitpicking at the margins. It's showing how Tesla is making misleading claims out of their insufficient data by not accounting for operating conditions. That's literally how Tesla is claiming Autopilot is "an order of magnitude safer than human driving". > You need a lot of confounding effect to make up for an order of magnitude delta! Or you could just make misleading comparisons to claim that. That's pretty easy too.
- ajross 4y ago
  It's just tiresome. You know the cars are safe. You want to say they're unsafe. But you can't, because they're safe. So you're yelling about what amounts to marketing strategy. Which, fine. Everyone does bad marketing, there's lots to yell about. Maybe consider yelling about the deceptive marketing practices of a product you do use? There are lots to choose from.
  - ra7 4y ago
    "Our cars are safe" "Show us unbiased data proving it" "If it were unsafe, we would know" Sigh. I own a Tesla and use FSD, but thanks for assuming.
    - ajross 4y ago
      They did show the data. You want to throw the data out instead of believing it. Nitpicks aren't winning arguments, and you know that. I'm saying that if you want to argue with someone's data, you need to argue with data and not just that some different experiment would be better. What the linked article is doing is just excuse-making, basically.
      - ra7 4y ago
        Huh, what? It's completely reasonable to question the methodology. That's not nitpicking. I get it. You want to take the data at face value without questioning anything.
        ajross 4y ago
        To be blunt: I don't take your words here to be a dispassionate "questioning of methodology". If that was your goal, you would at least nod to the numbers and the clear fact that even if the measurements were confounded they probably point to a safe system. I'm not saying take it at face value at all. I'm happy to discuss methodology and to admit that the numbers on Tesla's site amount to something closer to marketing than science. But nonetheless, the cars remain safe. This methodology would have to be outrageously confounded to produce a result like this for an unsafe car, and you know it.
clouddrover 4y ago
> The linked article is literally about Dude, you couldn't even get the date of the article right.

by ajross 4y ago

ra7 4y ago

> It's about nitpicking at the margins. The article is not nitpicking at the margins. It's showing how Tesla is making misleading claims out of their insufficient data by not accounting for operating conditions. That's literally how Tesla is claiming Autopilot is "an order of magnitude safer than human driving". > You need a lot of confounding effect to make up for an order of magnitude delta! Or you could just make misleading comparisons to claim that. That's pretty easy too.

ajross 4y ago
It's just tiresome. You know the cars are safe. You want to say they're unsafe. But you can't, because they're safe. So you're yelling about what amounts to marketing strategy. Which, fine. Everyone does bad marketing, there's lots to yell about. Maybe consider yelling about the deceptive marketing practices of a product you do use? There are lots to choose from.
- ra7 4y ago
  "Our cars are safe" "Show us unbiased data proving it" "If it were unsafe, we would know" Sigh. I own a Tesla and use FSD, but thanks for assuming.
  - ajross 4y ago
    They did show the data. You want to throw the data out instead of believing it. Nitpicks aren't winning arguments, and you know that. I'm saying that if you want to argue with someone's data, you need to argue with data and not just that some different experiment would be better. What the linked article is doing is just excuse-making, basically.
    - ra7 4y ago
      Huh, what? It's completely reasonable to question the methodology. That's not nitpicking. I get it. You want to take the data at face value without questioning anything.
      - ajross 4y ago
        To be blunt: I don't take your words here to be a dispassionate "questioning of methodology". If that was your goal, you would at least nod to the numbers and the clear fact that even if the measurements were confounded they probably point to a safe system. I'm not saying take it at face value at all. I'm happy to discuss methodology and to admit that the numbers on Tesla's site amount to something closer to marketing than science. But nonetheless, the cars remain safe. This methodology would have to be outrageously confounded to produce a result like this for an unsafe car, and you know it.

clouddrover 4y ago

> The linked article is literally about Dude, you couldn't even get the date of the article right.