5 ms·

This is one of those things where if we had a normal functioning regulatory environment, Elon Musk would be in jail long before he got this obvious. Having an "

This is one of those things where if we had a normal functioning regulatory environment, Elon Musk would be in jail long before he got this obvious. Having an "Autopilot" mode people get killed by because it doesn't actually drive the car should've been plenty.

noir_lord 1y ago
Agreed but we are through the looking glass at this point.
monerozcash 1y ago
There has to be some acceptable maximum rate at which your products can kill people, and Tesla's autopilot is probably below that rate.
- barnabee 1y ago
  Thinks aren’t magically legal just as long they don’t kill “too many” people.
  - monerozcash 1y ago
    Things aren't magically illegal just because they sometimes kill people
    - barnabee 1y ago
      Driving dangerously is illegal in most places though, and the illegality isn’t tied to the fatality rate of your driving style.
- gambiting 1y ago
  I keep using this as an example - the Therac mechines for radiotherapy undoubtedly saved lives. They also undoubtedly administered radiation treatment better, faster and more accurately than any manual operator could have done. And yet, they all got recalled when we realized they "sometimes" administer a lethal dose of radiation by mistake. Or do you think they should have continued operating? What was the "acceptable maximum rate at which your products can kill people" for them? Because I'd argue it's zero. And it should be zero for Teslas or any cars that have something called "autopilot".
  - monerozcash 1y ago
    A surgeon who performed a voluntary operation which caused unpredictable complications leading to death shouldn't necessarily stop operating on other patients. There's a line that has to be drawn somewhere, I'm not going to draw it. A self-driving car that kills less people per mile than a reasonably selected cohort of human drivers is probably a good thing.
    - gambiting 1y ago
      Replace the surgeon with a robotic surgeon operating under some kind of autonomous mode and yes, I think every robot of its kind should be immediately pulled out of use. >>A self-driving car that kills less people per mile than a reasonably selected cohort of human drivers is probably a good thing. Hard disagree, and I honestly hate it when people make that argument. The number should be zero.
      - monerozcash 1y ago
        >Hard disagree, and I honestly hate it when people make that argument. The number should be zero. Are you suggesting that we could use such a system but shouldn't be happy with it until it reaches zero deaths? In which case I couldn't agree more. Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't use a technology that is vastly safer than human drivers, but still causes a nonzero amount of deaths?
        gambiting 1y ago
        >>Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't use a technology that is vastly safer than human drivers, but still causes a nonzero amount of deaths? Absolutely this one. And the key word here is "causes" - if the deaths are being caused by mistakes of the algorithm(and by extension - their creators) then every single one of these systems should be disabled and pulled out from sale until it can be addressed, in the same way a plane autopilot would be. I suspect we will disagree on this. Perhaps look at it this way - when I buy an automatic pressure cooker, I need it to explode exactly zero times, not "less than manual pressure cookers". If my car drives into a concrete barrier because it thought it's actually a perfectly straight road g - I really really don't care that on average fewer people have died while using it than when driving themselves. It's unsafe and it should be forbidden from sale and use on public roads.
- appreciatorBus 1y ago
  You would need more than one rate: - percentage of product owner operators who are killed by the product they own/operate per year - number of other people killed by the median product owner per year - inflation adjusted property damage (belonging to other people, or to the public/govt) caused by the median product owner per year Regulating products based on the potential to kill, maim, or injure, is not a terrible idea. It’s why we require more training of people who fly 747, then people who operate cars. But if it was going to work, we’d have to do it without carve outs - if it only applies to some products, then it’s really just politics. If Tesla’s auto pilot is really so safe that it needs little or no regulation, then by definition, regular cars are so dangerous that they should be banned or require much more regulation. But I only ever hear the first half of this argument, which makes me worry this is not really an argument about safety.
lotsofpulp 1y ago
Autopilot in planes also doesn’t actually pilot the plane gate to gate. That name actually seems consistent with the plane use of autopilot, as Autopilot in a Tesla merely follows the lane markings and keeps distance from the car in front.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  Care to list the major functions of autopilot in airplanes and the Tesla equivalent?
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    I have no expertise in piloting or the details of autopilot in a plane, except that it does not fly the plane gate to gate, however it does assist the pilot in mundane tasks, such as cruising at altitude and following a path. Maybe modern ones land/take off, I don’t know, but a pilot is still required for many crucial tasks as far as I know. Which is what the Autopilot function does in a Tesla, so I find it to not be a misleading name.
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      > I only have a vague idea of what autopilot does but I can confidently say that Tesla autopilot is the same.
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        That is not what I wrote, but feel free to interpret it that way if it makes you feel better. > Having an "Autopilot" mode people get killed by because it doesn't actually drive the car should've been plenty. Just like you need a pilot paying attention even when a plane is using autopilot, you need a driver paying attention when a Tesla is on Autopilot. Where is the incongruence?
        cosmicgadget 1y ago

noir_lord 1y ago

Agreed but we are through the looking glass at this point.

monerozcash 1y ago

There has to be some acceptable maximum rate at which your products can kill people, and Tesla's autopilot is probably below that rate.

barnabee 1y ago
Thinks aren’t magically legal just as long they don’t kill “too many” people.
- monerozcash 1y ago
  Things aren't magically illegal just because they sometimes kill people
  - barnabee 1y ago
    Driving dangerously is illegal in most places though, and the illegality isn’t tied to the fatality rate of your driving style.
gambiting 1y ago
I keep using this as an example - the Therac mechines for radiotherapy undoubtedly saved lives. They also undoubtedly administered radiation treatment better, faster and more accurately than any manual operator could have done. And yet, they all got recalled when we realized they "sometimes" administer a lethal dose of radiation by mistake. Or do you think they should have continued operating? What was the "acceptable maximum rate at which your products can kill people" for them? Because I'd argue it's zero. And it should be zero for Teslas or any cars that have something called "autopilot".
- monerozcash 1y ago
  A surgeon who performed a voluntary operation which caused unpredictable complications leading to death shouldn't necessarily stop operating on other patients. There's a line that has to be drawn somewhere, I'm not going to draw it. A self-driving car that kills less people per mile than a reasonably selected cohort of human drivers is probably a good thing.
  - gambiting 1y ago
    Replace the surgeon with a robotic surgeon operating under some kind of autonomous mode and yes, I think every robot of its kind should be immediately pulled out of use. >>A self-driving car that kills less people per mile than a reasonably selected cohort of human drivers is probably a good thing. Hard disagree, and I honestly hate it when people make that argument. The number should be zero.
    - monerozcash 1y ago
      >Hard disagree, and I honestly hate it when people make that argument. The number should be zero. Are you suggesting that we could use such a system but shouldn't be happy with it until it reaches zero deaths? In which case I couldn't agree more. Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't use a technology that is vastly safer than human drivers, but still causes a nonzero amount of deaths?
      - gambiting 1y ago
        >>Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't use a technology that is vastly safer than human drivers, but still causes a nonzero amount of deaths? Absolutely this one. And the key word here is "causes" - if the deaths are being caused by mistakes of the algorithm(and by extension - their creators) then every single one of these systems should be disabled and pulled out from sale until it can be addressed, in the same way a plane autopilot would be. I suspect we will disagree on this. Perhaps look at it this way - when I buy an automatic pressure cooker, I need it to explode exactly zero times, not "less than manual pressure cookers". If my car drives into a concrete barrier because it thought it's actually a perfectly straight road g - I really really don't care that on average fewer people have died while using it than when driving themselves. It's unsafe and it should be forbidden from sale and use on public roads.
appreciatorBus 1y ago
You would need more than one rate: - percentage of product owner operators who are killed by the product they own/operate per year - number of other people killed by the median product owner per year - inflation adjusted property damage (belonging to other people, or to the public/govt) caused by the median product owner per year Regulating products based on the potential to kill, maim, or injure, is not a terrible idea. It’s why we require more training of people who fly 747, then people who operate cars. But if it was going to work, we’d have to do it without carve outs - if it only applies to some products, then it’s really just politics. If Tesla’s auto pilot is really so safe that it needs little or no regulation, then by definition, regular cars are so dangerous that they should be banned or require much more regulation. But I only ever hear the first half of this argument, which makes me worry this is not really an argument about safety.

lotsofpulp 1y ago

Autopilot in planes also doesn’t actually pilot the plane gate to gate. That name actually seems consistent with the plane use of autopilot, as Autopilot in a Tesla merely follows the lane markings and keeps distance from the car in front.

cosmicgadget 1y ago
Care to list the major functions of autopilot in airplanes and the Tesla equivalent?
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  I have no expertise in piloting or the details of autopilot in a plane, except that it does not fly the plane gate to gate, however it does assist the pilot in mundane tasks, such as cruising at altitude and following a path. Maybe modern ones land/take off, I don’t know, but a pilot is still required for many crucial tasks as far as I know. Which is what the Autopilot function does in a Tesla, so I find it to not be a misleading name.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    > I only have a vague idea of what autopilot does but I can confidently say that Tesla autopilot is the same.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      That is not what I wrote, but feel free to interpret it that way if it makes you feel better. > Having an "Autopilot" mode people get killed by because it doesn't actually drive the car should've been plenty. Just like you need a pilot paying attention even when a plane is using autopilot, you need a driver paying attention when a Tesla is on Autopilot. Where is the incongruence?
      - cosmicgadget 1y ago