3 ms·

They are objectively, literally fatally confused as to the abilities of their vehicles. Tesla's systems, or any other ADAS for that matter, can not be safely u

by Veserv 3y ago

They are objectively, literally fatally confused as to the abilities of their vehicles. Tesla's systems, or any other ADAS for that matter, can not be safely used without a fully attentive driver and Tesla's system in particular further demands that you must keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times. Deliberately and intentionally operating such a system without your full attention because you think it will safely drive you without your attention is like shoving your hand into a spinning saw blade. That is not to say that everybody who is injured by a spinning saw blade or by inattentive use indicates a product is fundamentally unsafe. Many people just inherently display inappropriate caution and most become complacent with dangerous devices through repeated "safe use". For a spinning saw blade, they miscalculate the risk and overestimate the safety mechanism, but they are not confused about that fact that inserting their hand into a spinning saw blade is a very bad idea. If Tesla ADAS operators only overestimated their attention then it would be comparable to a spinning saw blade, useful but dangerous. However, Tesla marketing aggressively misrepresents the capabilities of their systems and the Tesla ADAS operators routinely believe the marketing that it can safely drive without their attention; they believe you should insert your hand into a spinning saw blade and many people have literally died as a result. That is textbook fatal confusion about the abilities of their vehicles.

tgma 3y ago
> They are objectively, literally fatally confused as to the abilities of their vehicles. Citation needed. > Deliberately and intentionally operating such a system without your full attention because you think it will safely drive you without your attention is like shoving your hand into a spinning saw blade. False. Objectively and manifestly so. Regardless of it being a good idea or not, one hurts you with a small probability, one almost certainly. > For a spinning saw blade, they miscalculate the risk and overestimate the safety mechanism, but they are not confused about that fact that inserting their hand into a spinning saw blade is a very bad idea. Where is the data that attributes the behavior to risk miscalculation, not the temptation of doing it despite the risk? People do stupid things all the time despite the risks. They skydive and bungie jump FFS. > If Tesla ADAS operators only overestimated their attention then it would be comparable to a spinning saw blade, useful but dangerous. However, Tesla marketing aggressively misrepresents the capabilities of their systems and the Tesla ADAS operators routinely believe the marketing that it can safely drive without their attention; they believe you should insert your hand into a spinning saw blade and many people have literally died as a result. That is textbook fatal confusion about the abilities of their vehicles. I cannot take this rant seriously; let's say we take it as true: you could substitute Tesla driving to driving any vehicle (which can be fatal) and keep the argument unchanged. Tesla has cited numbers on safety. I'd rather have a quantifiable argument about pros and cons rather than analogies comparing to saw blades.
- Veserv 3y ago
  The analogy was provided to help illustrate the difference between complacency and confusion. You can not substitute driving any vehicle into the analogy unchanged because in normal vehicles the overwhelming majority of vehicle operators do not believe the vehicle can be operated safely without attention. Some may do so anyways, but the overwhelming majority of those cases are because they believe they are paying an adequate amount of attention, not because they believe no attention is needed. That is an example of complacency. If they wrongly believe that no attention is needed, then that is confusion. It is okay if you misunderstood as people who have no experience with safety-critical engineering are usually unfamiliar with the distinction, but you should reflect on it until you understand as it is hard to provide meaningful input to a conversation until you understand the basics. Good luck with your learning.
  - tgma 3y ago
    Tha analogy was far off and exaggerated to the point that it was meaningless. At this point you're continuously making up things using phrases like "overwhelming majority". Unless you are able to substiate your claims with something other than your feelings and point to data I don't think continuing this discussion is productive. I'm outta here.

by Veserv 3y ago

tgma 3y ago

> They are objectively, literally fatally confused as to the abilities of their vehicles. Citation needed. > Deliberately and intentionally operating such a system without your full attention because you think it will safely drive you without your attention is like shoving your hand into a spinning saw blade. False. Objectively and manifestly so. Regardless of it being a good idea or not, one hurts you with a small probability, one almost certainly. > For a spinning saw blade, they miscalculate the risk and overestimate the safety mechanism, but they are not confused about that fact that inserting their hand into a spinning saw blade is a very bad idea. Where is the data that attributes the behavior to risk miscalculation, not the temptation of doing it despite the risk? People do stupid things all the time despite the risks. They skydive and bungie jump FFS. > If Tesla ADAS operators only overestimated their attention then it would be comparable to a spinning saw blade, useful but dangerous. However, Tesla marketing aggressively misrepresents the capabilities of their systems and the Tesla ADAS operators routinely believe the marketing that it can safely drive without their attention; they believe you should insert your hand into a spinning saw blade and many people have literally died as a result. That is textbook fatal confusion about the abilities of their vehicles. I cannot take this rant seriously; let's say we take it as true: you could substitute Tesla driving to driving any vehicle (which can be fatal) and keep the argument unchanged. Tesla has cited numbers on safety. I'd rather have a quantifiable argument about pros and cons rather than analogies comparing to saw blades.

Veserv 3y ago
The analogy was provided to help illustrate the difference between complacency and confusion. You can not substitute driving any vehicle into the analogy unchanged because in normal vehicles the overwhelming majority of vehicle operators do not believe the vehicle can be operated safely without attention. Some may do so anyways, but the overwhelming majority of those cases are because they believe they are paying an adequate amount of attention, not because they believe no attention is needed. That is an example of complacency. If they wrongly believe that no attention is needed, then that is confusion. It is okay if you misunderstood as people who have no experience with safety-critical engineering are usually unfamiliar with the distinction, but you should reflect on it until you understand as it is hard to provide meaningful input to a conversation until you understand the basics. Good luck with your learning.
- tgma 3y ago
  Tha analogy was far off and exaggerated to the point that it was meaningless. At this point you're continuously making up things using phrases like "overwhelming majority". Unless you are able to substiate your claims with something other than your feelings and point to data I don't think continuing this discussion is productive. I'm outta here.