7 ms·

Of course they knew. The engineers knew, Elon knew. They aren't stupid. I know some Tesla people. They all know. Elon is a great showman. That's not an attack

Of course they knew. The engineers knew, Elon knew. They aren't stupid. I know some Tesla people. They all know. Elon is a great showman. That's not an attack it's just the truth. The judge is right, Elon did use "doublespeak" and intentionally misleading statements to push autopilot.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
How are these people so comfortable with negligent homicide? They must tell themselves that what they're working on is so 'important' that it's ok that someone (else) dies.
- gambiting 3y ago
  >>How are these people so comfortable with negligent homicide? They have some ethical defense in their head that absolves them of all of this, like "we believe our cars are much safer to use than normal cars, so the fact that sometimes they kill people through our mistakes is irrelevant, they are a net positive anyway".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    I hate how the logic adds up but can you actually argue with the ends?
    - salawat 3y ago
      Yes, you can. Ends do not justify means.
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        You're right, I just always wonder since that trolley or whatever problem like "kill 1" vs "kill 5" but even "kill 2" is already a perfect microcosm of the inherent difficulty, philosophically speaking, in terms of the way or the standards on which we prioritize and enumerate the "value" of individual human beings. I'm not sure if that sentence "works" but I think you'll arrive at what I'm saying "in the end" ;)
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        The more interesting questions to me, legally speaking: 1. Who was their General Counsel at the time? 2. Were they consulted regarding all of this? 3. What was their documented legal advice regarding same? 4. Did Tesla deviate or depart from the advice? 5. Who (provide an array[]stamped their name on that decision). So for example, say we're talking about Trump: do your own research but ask these questions and you'll be presumably on your way to thinking like a prosecutor.
    - klyrs 3y ago
      Can you prove that letting subautomatic cars kill people is necessary to achieve level 5 automation? Because we aren't close, and "the ends" thus far is stuffing Elon's pocketbook.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    Except that all of those claims are based on an understanding of statistics that would barely pass middle school. "Miles on a subset of conditions that were sufficient so as to not deactivate systems" is not "miles in all conditions".

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

How are these people so comfortable with negligent homicide? They must tell themselves that what they're working on is so 'important' that it's ok that someone (else) dies.

gambiting 3y ago
>>How are these people so comfortable with negligent homicide? They have some ethical defense in their head that absolves them of all of this, like "we believe our cars are much safer to use than normal cars, so the fact that sometimes they kill people through our mistakes is irrelevant, they are a net positive anyway".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  I hate how the logic adds up but can you actually argue with the ends?
  - salawat 3y ago
    Yes, you can. Ends do not justify means.
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      You're right, I just always wonder since that trolley or whatever problem like "kill 1" vs "kill 5" but even "kill 2" is already a perfect microcosm of the inherent difficulty, philosophically speaking, in terms of the way or the standards on which we prioritize and enumerate the "value" of individual human beings. I'm not sure if that sentence "works" but I think you'll arrive at what I'm saying "in the end" ;)
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      The more interesting questions to me, legally speaking: 1. Who was their General Counsel at the time? 2. Were they consulted regarding all of this? 3. What was their documented legal advice regarding same? 4. Did Tesla deviate or depart from the advice? 5. Who (provide an array[]stamped their name on that decision). So for example, say we're talking about Trump: do your own research but ask these questions and you'll be presumably on your way to thinking like a prosecutor.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    Can you prove that letting subautomatic cars kill people is necessary to achieve level 5 automation? Because we aren't close, and "the ends" thus far is stuffing Elon's pocketbook.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Except that all of those claims are based on an understanding of statistics that would barely pass middle school. "Miles on a subset of conditions that were sufficient so as to not deactivate systems" is not "miles in all conditions".