3 ms·
I think the quote from the article really sums it up in plain language, and the argument Musk presents should be familiar to anyone here, who's heard the "Robot
by EA-3167 3y ago
I think the quote from the article really sums it up in plain language, and the argument Musk presents should be familiar to anyone here, who's heard the "Robots > Humans in a car" argument.
> “Regardless of how drunk Hans was, Musk has claimed that this car can drive itself and is essentially better than a human,” Bass said. “We were sold a false sense of security.”
- sokoloff 3y agoI'm no Tesla fan boy, but it seems entirely possible that even the limited capability of FSD was better/safer than a driver whose BAC was 0.26%, even if this one ended up in a fatal crash, as that happens to drunk human drivers at the rate of more than 10K deaths per year in the US. If this is the first FSD death in the world, Tesla is probably thankful that it was someone who was hammered.
- yardie 3y agoI believe this is the first fatality where Tesla can't weasel their way out of the cause. There have been multiple crashes, some fatal, where FSD was engaged but disengaged a split second before the crash. So in the mere seconds between the autopilot disengaging and the impact the driver is supposed to be fully up to speed on what's about to happen and avoid it. Also, a lot of these drivers were behaving in a unsympathetic manor (ie sleeping while FSD engaged) and the jury determined they were being a bit more reckless than what the media would let you believe.
- AlexandrB 3y agoThe problem is that someone who was hammered might have taken a Taxi home if they didn't have a car that claimed it could drive them home autonomously. In which case it doesn't matter how much better FSD is than a drunk driver. A colleague of mine actually bought a Tesla for this reason - to get them home safely from the bar. Tesla's marketing is way out of step from their actual capabilities and it gives people a false sense of security.