5 ms·

His point was that the Driver will put you at risk though.

by mgoetzke 3y ago

freejazz 3y ago
I understand that - what does that have to do with Tesla?
- natch 3y ago
  Exactly. Any driver can put you at risk. Nothing to do with Tesla. As far as we can tell from reading the article, this whistleblower is reporting on stuff that is entirely resulting from driver misbehavior, which is possible in any car. But since he worked at Tesla and has some kind of issue with Tesla, it seems like he’s trying to make it about FSD when it’s really just down to the driver. At least that’s my read of it.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    >Exactly. Any driver can put you at risk. Nothing to do with Tesla. Well, to the extent it is caused by a Tesla, it absolutely has something to do with Tesla. I don't get to smash into a car because a drunk driver would. Why should a Tesla? It's a bit disingenuous to "put it on the driver" when the driver isn't driving because he's using Tesla's self-driving software.
    - natch 3y ago
      How it works is the driver is responsible for maintaining safety at all times. We are talking about the beta here. So it is 100% the driver. When the non-beta exists, then we can talk about that, but we aren't there yet.
      - freejazz 3y ago
        That's what Tesla says, but that's clearly just a way for them to avoid liability. A system that points you off a cliff and then gives you control after its already terminal is facially defective. >When the non-beta exists, then we can talk about that, but we aren't there yet. Sorry, but putting the label "test" on things is not actually a way to avoid legal liablity for your products. No less when you sell them without restriction.
        natch 3y ago
        How do you propose any self driving system reach perfection without ever having a beta testing period? And why not give drivers responsibility for maintaining safety? Shouldn’t they try to be safe, and carry responsibility when they are fully in control?
        freejazz 3y ago
        >How do you propose any self driving system reach perfection without ever having a beta testing period? A few thoughts here: (1) I didn't propose otherwise, I just pointed out that it's deficient (at least, legally) to say "I can be negligent because others are negligent", or to put it another way "other people's negligence should put you on warning with regards to my negligence", (2) I don't think it's my burden to satisfy this problem, regardless, even granting your point, it doesn't have to proceed the way Tesla has so far, it certainly hasn't with regards to other similar companies making similar products. >And why not give drivers responsibility for maintaining safety? Because the manufacturer of a self-driving product should be primarily responsible for how it functions. How exactly is that controversial to you? To whatever extent the driver is jointly liable might be a question, but, given how Tesla's self driving feature works, Tesla is clearly responsible for how it functions, including when it determines that the driver must take over. I've seen nothing that indicates that this function occurs in a way that always allows a driver to establish a safe response to whatever the self-driving couldn't handle. So, to be honest, your question seems a bit absurd to me. >Shouldn’t they try to be safe, and carry responsibility when they are fully in control? Yeah, but no one here is talking about when the driver is driving, we are talking abotu when the self-driving feature is driving. You are farcically insisting that the driver is driving even when self-driving is enabled. Can't have it both ways.
        natch 3y ago
        >Because the manufacturer of a self-driving product Hold on right there. There is no self-driving product in the picture or in the conversation. Other than one in your imagination maybe. It is a beta which is not yet self driving. >should be primarily responsible for how it functions. By your logic, should Toyota pay for all accidents that happen in Toyotas? No, because Toyotas are not fully self driving? I have news for you. Neither are Teslas. >How exactly is that controversial to you? Your hypothetical sounds reasonable in theory, but it’s predicated on an imaginary situation that does not exist.

His point was that the Driver will put you at risk though.

freejazz 3y ago

I understand that - what does that have to do with Tesla?

natch 3y ago
Exactly. Any driver can put you at risk. Nothing to do with Tesla. As far as we can tell from reading the article, this whistleblower is reporting on stuff that is entirely resulting from driver misbehavior, which is possible in any car. But since he worked at Tesla and has some kind of issue with Tesla, it seems like he’s trying to make it about FSD when it’s really just down to the driver. At least that’s my read of it.
- freejazz 3y ago
  >Exactly. Any driver can put you at risk. Nothing to do with Tesla. Well, to the extent it is caused by a Tesla, it absolutely has something to do with Tesla. I don't get to smash into a car because a drunk driver would. Why should a Tesla? It's a bit disingenuous to "put it on the driver" when the driver isn't driving because he's using Tesla's self-driving software.
  - natch 3y ago
    How it works is the driver is responsible for maintaining safety at all times. We are talking about the beta here. So it is 100% the driver. When the non-beta exists, then we can talk about that, but we aren't there yet.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      That's what Tesla says, but that's clearly just a way for them to avoid liability. A system that points you off a cliff and then gives you control after its already terminal is facially defective. >When the non-beta exists, then we can talk about that, but we aren't there yet. Sorry, but putting the label "test" on things is not actually a way to avoid legal liablity for your products. No less when you sell them without restriction.
      - natch 3y ago
        How do you propose any self driving system reach perfection without ever having a beta testing period? And why not give drivers responsibility for maintaining safety? Shouldn’t they try to be safe, and carry responsibility when they are fully in control?
        freejazz 3y ago
        >How do you propose any self driving system reach perfection without ever having a beta testing period? A few thoughts here: (1) I didn't propose otherwise, I just pointed out that it's deficient (at least, legally) to say "I can be negligent because others are negligent", or to put it another way "other people's negligence should put you on warning with regards to my negligence", (2) I don't think it's my burden to satisfy this problem, regardless, even granting your point, it doesn't have to proceed the way Tesla has so far, it certainly hasn't with regards to other similar companies making similar products. >And why not give drivers responsibility for maintaining safety? Because the manufacturer of a self-driving product should be primarily responsible for how it functions. How exactly is that controversial to you? To whatever extent the driver is jointly liable might be a question, but, given how Tesla's self driving feature works, Tesla is clearly responsible for how it functions, including when it determines that the driver must take over. I've seen nothing that indicates that this function occurs in a way that always allows a driver to establish a safe response to whatever the self-driving couldn't handle. So, to be honest, your question seems a bit absurd to me. >Shouldn’t they try to be safe, and carry responsibility when they are fully in control? Yeah, but no one here is talking about when the driver is driving, we are talking abotu when the self-driving feature is driving. You are farcically insisting that the driver is driving even when self-driving is enabled. Can't have it both ways.
        natch 3y ago
        >Because the manufacturer of a self-driving product Hold on right there. There is no self-driving product in the picture or in the conversation. Other than one in your imagination maybe. It is a beta which is not yet self driving. >should be primarily responsible for how it functions. By your logic, should Toyota pay for all accidents that happen in Toyotas? No, because Toyotas are not fully self driving? I have news for you. Neither are Teslas. >How exactly is that controversial to you? Your hypothetical sounds reasonable in theory, but it’s predicated on an imaginary situation that does not exist.