4 ms·

No, turning off autopilot during a crash isn't subterfuge. The subterfuge would be using that to lie about autopilot's involvement. I'm pretty sure that has n

No, turning off autopilot during a crash isn't subterfuge. The subterfuge would be using that to lie about autopilot's involvement. I'm pretty sure that has never happened, and their past data has included anyone using autopilot in the vicinity of a crash, much more than one second.

atombender 1y ago
The article cites an example of a Tesla engineer dying in a crash where witnesses (including a survivor) say he had FSD turned on. Elon claimed the witnesses were wrong.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  You mean this one? "The Tesla CEO claimed von Ohain had never downloaded the latest version of the software – so it couldn’t have caused the crash." That quote isn't playing games about whether it was engaged or not. If that's a lie it's equally easy to make the lie whether the system disengages or stays engaged. I'm taking issue with a very specific scenario, not claiming tesla is honest in general.
close04 1y ago
Turning off the system just before a crash when it’s unavoidable allows them to say “the system wasn’t active when the crash occurred” and implicitly label a lot of data “irrelevant”. Which they do a lot of times according to the article, without providing any of that data. That’s beyond subterfuge. They don’t just kill people, they destroy evidence of their guilt and shift the blame to the victim. How much stock one needs to own to pretend they don’t understand this? Tesla bragged about the cars giving a ton of data, and showed it when this suited the company and it was good for the image. But every time it was controversial like an unexplainable accident potentially caused by the car itself the data was somehow not transmitted, or lost, or irrelevant. I’m not sure why you have such a hard time understanding the issue, or insist on what you’re “pretty sure” about when all evidence (they cite the NHTSA and experiments conducted privately by a NASA engineer, as well as the string of coincidental data unavailability for controversial accidents) points to the contrary. The article provides evidence and discussion on all these points. Nonetheless you ignore all that and stick to your “I’m pretty sure” with fanboy abandon. Sets a really low bar for future conversations.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  > Turning off the system just before a crash when it’s unavoidable allows them to say “the system wasn’t active when the crash occurred” In theory. Maybe. Have they ever done that? You're citing entirely different bad behavior. That's not evidence for my question. The article has claims of stonewalling and claiming no data at all and one case where they said the software wasn't even installed, but those are not the scenario I asked about. Calling me a tesla fanboy for wanting evidence for the correct claim instead of a completely different claim is pretty ridiculous. I'm not being pro tesla here. And the reason I said "pretty sure" is that people bring up that scenario over and over and over, but nobody has ever shown an example of it being real, despite having tons of examples of other tesla problems.

atombender 1y ago

The article cites an example of a Tesla engineer dying in a crash where witnesses (including a survivor) say he had FSD turned on. Elon claimed the witnesses were wrong.

Dylan16807 1y ago
You mean this one? "The Tesla CEO claimed von Ohain had never downloaded the latest version of the software – so it couldn’t have caused the crash." That quote isn't playing games about whether it was engaged or not. If that's a lie it's equally easy to make the lie whether the system disengages or stays engaged. I'm taking issue with a very specific scenario, not claiming tesla is honest in general.

close04 1y ago

Turning off the system just before a crash when it’s unavoidable allows them to say “the system wasn’t active when the crash occurred” and implicitly label a lot of data “irrelevant”. Which they do a lot of times according to the article, without providing any of that data. That’s beyond subterfuge. They don’t just kill people, they destroy evidence of their guilt and shift the blame to the victim. How much stock one needs to own to pretend they don’t understand this? Tesla bragged about the cars giving a ton of data, and showed it when this suited the company and it was good for the image. But every time it was controversial like an unexplainable accident potentially caused by the car itself the data was somehow not transmitted, or lost, or irrelevant. I’m not sure why you have such a hard time understanding the issue, or insist on what you’re “pretty sure” about when all evidence (they cite the NHTSA and experiments conducted privately by a NASA engineer, as well as the string of coincidental data unavailability for controversial accidents) points to the contrary. The article provides evidence and discussion on all these points. Nonetheless you ignore all that and stick to your “I’m pretty sure” with fanboy abandon. Sets a really low bar for future conversations.

Dylan16807 1y ago
> Turning off the system just before a crash when it’s unavoidable allows them to say “the system wasn’t active when the crash occurred” In theory. Maybe. Have they ever done that? You're citing entirely different bad behavior. That's not evidence for my question. The article has claims of stonewalling and claiming no data at all and one case where they said the software wasn't even installed, but those are not the scenario I asked about. Calling me a tesla fanboy for wanting evidence for the correct claim instead of a completely different claim is pretty ridiculous. I'm not being pro tesla here. And the reason I said "pretty sure" is that people bring up that scenario over and over and over, but nobody has ever shown an example of it being real, despite having tons of examples of other tesla problems.