Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

EmperorHenry ,
@EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

and the pedestrian-emergency-break on tesla cars, and many other cars with that feature will malfunction sometimes causing people behind you to rear-end you.

TimeNaan ,

Yeah but that's usually the fault of the driver behind you. They're too close, should've left more distance for emergency braking.

bitwolf ,

I just read on LinkedIn a post from a Tesla engineer laid off.

He said "I checked my email while auto piloting to work".

The employees know more than anyone its capabilities and they still take the same stupid risk.

n3m37h ,

Just like fight club, they're imagining them crashing into every transport they come close to

unreasonabro , (edited )

Obviously the time to react to the problem was before the system told you about it, that's the whole point, THE SYSTEM IS NOT READY. Cars are not ready to drive themselves, and obviously the legal system is too slow and backwards to deal with it so it's not ready either. But fuck it let's do it anyway, sure, and while we're at it we can do away with the concept of the driver's license in the first place because nothing matters any more and who gives a shit we're all obviously fucking retarded.

alienanimals ,

Tesla has very misleading marketing surrounding the "autonomy" of their vehicles. Mercedes Benz is the first (and only) company in the US to have a level 3: fully self-driving.

Moobythegoldensock ,

Yep, and even then it is very limited in when and where you can use it at this point.

Level 4 is the general use “high autonomy” vehicle, and while a few robotaxis and shuttles are able to do it, no regular car has it yet.

axo ,

Accoring to the math in this video:
:

  • 150 000 000 miles have been driven with Teslas "FSD", which equals to
  • 375 miles per tesla purchased with FSD capabilities
  • 736 known FSD crashes with 17 fatalities
  • equals 11.3 deaths per 100M miles of teslas FSD

Doesnt sound to bad, until you hear that a human produces 1.35 deaths per 100M miles driven...

Its rough math, but holy moly that already is a completely other class of deadly than a non FSD car

dufkm ,

a human produces 1.35 deaths per 100M miles driven

My car has been driven around 100k miles by a human, i.e. it has produced 0.00135 deaths. Is that like a third of a pinky toe?

Llewellyn ,

Yeah, another 900k, and you'll be ded.

NotMyOldRedditName , (edited )

That number is like 1.5 billion now and rising exponentially fast.

Also those deaths weren't all FSD they were AP.

The report says 1 FSD related (not caused by but related) death. For whatever reason the full details on that one weren't released.

Edit: There are billions of miles on AP. In 2020 it was 3 billion

Edit: Got home and I tried finding AP numbers through 2024 but haven't seen anything recent, but given 3 billion 2020, and 2 billion in 2019, and an accelerating rate of usage with increased car sales, 2023 is probably closer to 8 billion miles. I imagine we'd hear when they reach 10 billion.

So 8 billion miles, 16 AP fatalities (because that 1 FSD one isn't the same) is 1 fatality per 500,000,000 miles, or put into the terms above by per 100mil miles, 0.2 fatalities per 100 million miles or 6.75 times less than a human produces. And nearly all of these fatal accidents were from blatant misuse of the system like driving drunk (at least a few) or using their phone and playing games.

nek0d3r ,

I love to hate on musky boi as much as the next guy, but how does this actually compare to vehicular accidents and deaths overall? CGP Grey had the right idea when he said they didn't need to be perfect, just as good as or better than humans.

phoenixz ,

Yeah and that's the problem, they're no where near "as good"

Snapz , (edited )

"Hey, you guys know that I love to hate on musk.... but..."

machinin ,

Grey had the right idea when he said they didn't need to be perfect, just as good as or better than humans.

The better question - is Tesla's FSD causing drivers to have more accidents than other driving assist technologies? It seems like a yes from this article and other data I've linked elsewhere in this thread.

nek0d3r ,

I appreciate this response amongst all the malding! My understanding of the difference in assistive technologies across different companies is lacking, so I'll definitely look more into this.

JackbyDev ,

CGP Grey also seems to believe self driving cars with the absence of traffic lights is the solution to traffic as opposed to something like trains.

Skates ,

/c/fuckcars is that way, thanks for stopping by

Cars will never be dethroned. Yes, trains are cool - choo choo motherfucker. Yes, bikes are environmentally friendly. Yes, the car is a truly fucking horible answer to the question "how to get from A to B".

But that's because cars are the answer to the question "how to get from A to B comfortably". I don't want my baby and my in-law to get on the back of my bike when we're going camping. I don't want to take the train and then walk 2 miles from the station every single fucking day with 20kg of tools in my hand, because shit, the train doesn't stop next to my house, and it doesn't stop next to my work. I want to be able to have acces to comfortable transportation.

So the answer will still be the car. Even with everyone crying about it. Cause the cat's out of the bag with cars, we made them efficient and cheap enough to not be considered luxury items anymore. And some countries (see: US) have their entire infrastructure built with cars in mind. You're never putting the lid back on this, even if it's a decent idea.

ghotigoat ,

The solution to broken infrastructure isn't to double down. Nobody wants your baby and in-law on the back of your bike or for you to walk 2 miles per day, that isn't the criticism of cars. The criticism is that cars are more expensive and more dangerous than public transportation solutions, period.

Ideally, we develop towards a both/and solution in the future. We have cars, bus systems, and bike infrastructure which can do last-mile transportation, then we have high-speed rail between major cities. This reduces upkeep cost and makes travel safer for everyone.

This also isn't saying to rip everything up to implement this system, but we already have crumbling infrastructure in the US due to lack of federal and state funding which will need to be replaced. As we expand and maintain our infrastructure, we can start to implement better, safer ideas for transportation, rather than doubling down on what is convenient yet unsustainable.

nek0d3r ,

To kind of piggyback off this, some newer cities in the US do get built with curbing cars in mind. But there's definitely no easy fix for our systemic problem with infrastructure, and even if there was, cars are so deeply engraved in Americana that people here would fight it. It's an uphill battle, and self driving cars can help mitigate existing issues while we figure the rest out.

In smaller and mid size cities where I live, buses are the pretty decent form of public transportation, and I could absolutely see self driving sneak its way into there.

I get that conditions aren't ideal and that sucks, but progress comes in baby steps, and as long as the larger problems remain out of reach, these smaller ones help.

JackbyDev ,

What the fuck are you on about? Where did I ever say anything close to anything you are talking about? You clearly have some sort of beef that you need to deal with. I wish you peace.

KingThrillgore ,
@KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml avatar

A comment above points to a nearly 11x increase over human caused fatalities

NotMyOldRedditName ,

That comment was wrong. I pointed out why in a reply.

kikutwo ,

This just breaking, cars linked to thousands of crashes and deaths.

werefreeatlast ,

It's just a dozen! You know how many people COVID took? And everyone wanted COVID! ...it spreads of the air? Where's my fabric non filtering 😷 mask with added holes baby!? So you know...how cool would it be if you're riding a ordinary car and someone else is driving it into a wall or semi, except it's actually not a sentient being but an algorithm? It would be pretty cool right?

Socsa ,

I guess we should ban autopilot so we can go back to nobody having accidents in cars.

mojofrododojo ,

So we should let musk endanger people needlessly for tesla's profits?

a human driver isn't 100% but you can at least hold the human liable for their mistakes. Is Musk going to be liable for the accidents this causes?

Because that's the human left in the loop, the fool self drive champion.

set_secret ,

VERGE articles seem to be getting worse over the years, they've almost reached Forbes level, yes this does raise some valid safety concerns. No Tesla isn't bad just because it's Tesla.

It doesn't really give us the full picture. For starters, there's no comparison with Level 2 systems from other car makers, which also require driver engagement and have their own methods to ensure attention. This would help us understand how Tesla's tech actually measures up.

Plus, the piece skips over extremely important stats that would give us a clearer idea of how safe (or not) Tesla's systems are compared to good old human driving.

We're left in the dark about how Tesla compares in scenarios like drunk, distracted, or tired driving—common issues that automation aims to mitigate. (probably on purpose).

It feels like the article is more about stirring up feelings against Tesla rather than diving deep into the data. A more genuine take would have included these comparisons and variables, giving us a broader view of what these technologies mean for road safety.

I feel like any opportunity to jump on the Elon hate wagon is getting tiresome. (and yes i hate Elon too).

HeavyRaptor ,

I lost faith in the verge after how they handled the whole PC build fiasco

WormFood ,

a more genuine take would have included a series of scenarios (e.g. drunk/distracted/tired driving)

I agree. they did tesla dirty. a more fair comparison would've been between autopilot and a driver who was fully asleep. or maybe a driver who was dead?

and why didn't this news article contain a full scientific meta analysis of all self driving cars??? personally, when someone tells me that my car has an obvious fault, I ask them to produce detailed statistics on the failure rates of every comparable car model

mojofrododojo ,

a driver who was fully asleep. or maybe a driver who was dead?

why does it need to become a specious comparison for it to be valid in your expert opinion? because those comparisons are worthless.

Snapz ,

"And yes, I hate elon too, but"

PersnickityPenguin ,

A couple of my criticisms with the article, which is about "autopilot" and not fsd:

-conflating autopilot and dad numbers, they are not interoperable systems. They are separate code bases with different functionality.

-the definition of "autopilot" seems to have been lifted from the aviation industry. The term is used to describe a system that controls the vector of a vehicle, is the speed and direction. That's all. This does seem like a correct description for what the autopilot system does. While "FSD" does seem like it does not live up to expectations, not being a true level 5 driving system.

Merriam Webster defines autopilot thusly:

"A device for automatically steering ships, aircraft, and spacecraft
also : the automatic control provided by such a device"

Betide ,

The same people who are upset over self driving cars are the ones who scream at the self checkout that they shouldn't have to scan their own groceries because the store isn't paying them.

32% of all traffic crash fatalities in the United States involve drunk drivers.

I can't wait until the day that this kind of technology is required by law I'm tired of sharing the road with these idiots and I absolutely trust self driving vehicles more than I trust other humans.

MedicPigBabySaver ,
@MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world avatar

Bootlicker Musk butt lover.

kat_angstrom ,

I've never heard of anyone screaming because they had to scan their own groceries at a self-checkout. Is this a common thing?

Fridgeratr ,

No. No idea what they're talking about. If someone really feels that way, there are usually other aisles with people that can scan the groceries.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

people who are upset over self driving cars

If you are talking about Teslas, you can't be upset about something a car doesn't actually do unless you think it's actually capable of doing it.

The only thing I don't like is that Tesla is able to claim it has a "full self driving" mode which is not full self driving. Seems like false advertising to me.

EvolvedTurtle ,

I recently learned that at least half of the drivers where I live thing it's fine to cut me off while we are going 70mph on the highway with no signal

Landsharkgun ,

Stop. Using. Cars.

TypicalHog ,

I swear some people in this thread would call airplane autopilot bad cause it causes SOME death from time to time.

MedicPigBabySaver ,
@MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world avatar

Moron.

letsgo ,

OK.

Question: how do you propose I get to work? It's 15 miles, there are no trains, the buses are far too convoluted and take about 2 hours each way (no I'm not kidding), and "move house" is obviously going to take too long ("hey boss, some rando on the internet said "stop using cars" so do you mind if I take indefinite leave to sell my house and buy a closer one?").

dual_sport_dork ,
@dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world avatar

Buy a motorcycle. Not technically a car!

letsgo ,

I already have (Yamaha MT10), but presumably that has the same problem that cars do (burning fossil fuels); also it's no good in shit weather (yeah I know that means I need better clothing).

zarkanian ,
@zarkanian@sh.itjust.works avatar

There should be viable mass transit. This is a systemic problem.

letsgo ,

Sure, but the challenge was "Don't use cars", not "Don't use cars where there is viable mass transit in place".

TypicalHog ,

It only matters if the autopilot does more kills than an average human driver on the same distance traveled.

PresidentCamacho ,

This is the actual logical way to think about self driving cars. Stop down voting him because "Tesla bad" you fuckin goons.

Tja ,

But... Panel gaps!

TypicalHog ,

Let them, people are dumb!

gallopingsnail ,
@gallopingsnail@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

Tesla's self driving appears to be less safe and causes more accidents than their competitors.

"NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation said in documents released Friday that it completed “an extensive body of work” which turned up evidence that “Tesla’s weak driver engagement system was not appropriate for Autopilot’s permissive operating capabilities."

Tesla bad.

nxdefiant ,

No one else has the same capability in as wide a geographic range. Waymo, Cruise, Blue Cruise, Mercedes, etc are all geolocked to certain areas or certain stretches of road.

GiveMemes ,

Ok? Nobody else is being as wildly irresponsible, therefore tesla should be... rewarded?

nxdefiant ,

I'm saying larger sample size == larger numbers.

Tesla announced 300 million miles on FSD v12 in just the last month.

https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/2001/tesla-on-fsd-close-to-license-deal-with-major-automaker-announces-miles-driven-on-fsd-v12

Geographically, that's all over the U.S, not just in hyper specific metro areas or stretches of road.

The sample size is orders of magnitude bigger than everyone else, by almost every metric.

If you include the most basic autopilot, Tesla surpassed 1 billion miles in 2018.

These are not opinions, just facts. Take them into account when you decide to interpret the opinion of others.

GiveMemes ,

That's not how rates work tho. Larger sample size doesn't correlate with a higher rate of accidents, which is what any such study implies, not just raw numbers. Your bullshit rationalization is funny. In fact, a larger sample size tends to correspond with lower rates of flaws, as there is less chance that an error/fault makes an outsized impact on the data.

nxdefiant ,

No one's talking about rates. The article itself, all the articles linked in these comments are talking about counts. Numbers of incidents. I'm not justifying anything because I'm not injecting my opinion here. I'm only pointing out that without context, counts don't give you enough information to draw a conclusion, that's just math. You can't even derive a rate without that context!

GiveMemes ,

That's not my point though. We both know that the government agency doing this work is primarily interested in the rates, whether or not reports from the media are talking about the total numbers or not. The only reason they started the process of investigation was because of individual incidents, yes, but they're not looking for a few cases, but a pattern.

(Like this one:https://www.ranzlaw.com/why-are-tesla-car-accident-rates-so-high/)

nxdefiant , (edited )

Once more, I'm literally not injecting an opinion here or arguing for or against anyone's point. All the articles here talked about counts of individual accidents with zero context about sample size, something that is absolutely crucial to establishing exactly what you're talking about, rates. You can shit all over that, and then pretend you didn't, but Im only pointing out that the math doesn't work unless that context is there.

(I find it funny that the article you just posted is literally an ad for a traffic accident lawyer: here's the study the ad is citing. The ad did some creative interpretation on those numbers, ignoring things like DUI's for example: https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/#:~:text=Tesla%20drivers%20have%20the%20highest%20accident%20rate%20compared%20with%20all,over%2020.00%20per%201%2C000%20drivers.)

TypicalHog ,

Can you link me the data that says Tesla's competitors self-driving is more safe and causes less accidents and WHICH ONES? I would really like to know who else has this level of self-driving while also having less accidents.

gallopingsnail ,
@gallopingsnail@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

The data doesn't exist, no other company has a level of "autonomy" that will let your car plow through shit without you paying attention.

TypicalHog ,

Therefore you can't compare!

gallopingsnail ,
@gallopingsnail@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

Lol

Socsa ,

I don't quite understand what they mean by this. It tracks drivers with a camera and the steering wheel sensor and literally turns itself off if you stop paying attention. What more can they do?

nxdefiant , (edited )

The NHSTA hasn't issued rules for these things either.

the U.S. gov has issued general guidelines for the technology/industry here:

https://www.transportation.gov/av/4

They have an article on it discussing levels of automation here:

https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-safety/automated-vehicles-safety

By all definitions layed out in that article:

BlueCruise, Super Cruise, Mercedes' thing is a lvl3 system ( you must be alert to reengage when the conditions for their operation no longer apply )

Tesla's FSD is a lvl 3 system (the system will warn you when you must reengage for any reason)

Waymo and Cruise are a lvl 4 system (geolocked)

Lvl 5 systems don't exist.

What we don't have is any kind of federal laws:

https://www.ncsl.org/transportation/autonomous-vehicles

Separated into two sections – voluntary guidance and technical assistance to states – the new guidance focuses on SAE international levels of automation 3-5, clarifies that entities do not need to wait to test or deploy their ADS, revises design elements from the safety self-assessment, aligns federal guidance with the latest developments and terminology, and clarifies the role of federal and state governments.

The guidance reinforces the voluntary nature of the guidelines and does not come with a compliance requirement or enforcement mechanism.

(emphasis mine)

The U.S. has operated on a "states are laboratories for laws" principal since its founding. The current situation is in line with that principle.

These are not my opinions, these are all facts.

iamtrashman1312 ,
@iamtrashman1312@lemmy.world avatar

So your stance is literally "human lives are a worthy sacrifice for this endeavor"

fuckingkangaroos ,

They're saying if this endeavor is overall saving lives then leave it alone...

TypicalHog ,

I SAID:
"IT ONLY MATTERS IF AUTOPILOT CAUSES MORE NET DEATHS PER MILE TRAVELED RATHER THAN LESS, WHEN COMPARED TO HUMAN DRIVERS!"

MenigPyle ,

Username checks out.

PresidentCamacho , (edited )

My argument is that self driving car fatalities have to be compared against human driven car fatalities. If the self driving cars kill 500 people a year, but humans kill 1000 people a year, which one is better. Logic clearly isn't your strong suit, maybe sit this one out...

mortemtyrannis ,

Knock knock

“Who is it?”

“Goons”

“Hired Goons”

doubtingtammy ,

It's not logical, it's ideological. It's the ideology that allows corporations to run a dangerous experiment on the public without their consent.

And where's the LIDAR again?

Geobloke ,

No it doesn't. Every life stolen matters and if it could be found that if tesla could have replicated industry best practice and saved more lives so that they could sell more cars then that is on them

NIB ,

If the cars run over people while going 30kmh because they use cameras and a bug crashed into the camera and that caused the car to go crazy, that is not acceptable, even if the cars crash "less than humans".

Self driving needs to be highly regulated by law and demand to have some bare minimum sensors, including radars, lidars, etc. Camera only self driving is beyond stupid. Cameras cant see in snow or dark or whatever. Anyone who has a phone knows how fucky the camera can get under specific light exposures, etc.

Noone but tesla is doing camera only "self driving" and they are only doing it in order to cut down the cost. Their older cars had more sensors than their newer cars. But Musk is living in his Bioshock uber capitalistic dream. Who cares if a few people die in the process of developing visual based self driving.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm2x6CVIXiE

TypicalHog ,

What are you? Some kind of lidar shill? Camera only should obviously be the endgame goal for all robots.
Also, this article is not even about camera only.

MedicPigBabySaver ,
@MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world avatar

Idiot

piecat ,

Obviously?

Why wouldn't we want other types of sensors...?

TypicalHog ,

Because that's expensive and can be done with a camera. And once you figure the camera stuff out - you gucci. Now you can do all kinds of shit without needing a lidar on every single robot.

AdrianTheFrog ,
@AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world avatar

Because that’s expensive and can be done with a camera.

Expensive, as in probably less than $600? Compared to the $35000 cost of a tesla?

(comparing the cost of the iPhone 12 (without lidar) and iPhone 12 pro (with lidar), we can guess that the sensor probably costs less than $200, so 3 of them (for left, right, and front) would cost probably less than $600)

lidar can actually be very cheap and small. Unfortunately, Apple bought the only company that seems to make sensors like that (besides some other super high end models)

There have been a lot of promising research papers on the technology lately though, so I expect more, higher resolution and cheaper lidar sensors to be available relatively soon (next couple years probably).

Grippler ,

Yeah that's not even remotely the same type of sensor used in robotics and autonomous cars. Yes lidar is getting cheaper, but for high detail long range detection they're much more expensive than the case of your iphone example. The iPhone "lidar" is less than useless in an automotive context.

TypicalHog ,

Perhaps. Idk, maybe I'm wrong. But it for sure seems it would be so much better if we achieved the same shit with a cheaper and more primitive simpler sensor.

BURN ,

To get the same resolution and quality of image in all lighting scenarios, cameras are actually going to be more expensive than LiDAR. Cameras suffer in low light, low contrast situations due to the physical limitations of bending light. More light = bigger lenses = higher cost, when LiDAR works better and is cheaper

TypicalHog ,

Alright.

Zink ,

My eyes are decent, but if I had a sixth sense that gave me full accurate 3D 360 spatial awareness regardless of visibility, I would probably not turn it off just to use my eyes. I’d use both.

TypicalHog ,

Alright.

mojofrododojo ,

Camera only should obviously be the endgame goal for all robots.

I can't tell if you're a moron or attempting sarcasm but this is the least informed opinion I've seen in ages.

TypicalHog ,

I wasn't attempting sarcasm, so maybe I'm a moron idk. Fair, it likely I'm uninformed. I just know my daddy Elon said something about how solving shit with camera only is probably the best path and will pay off.

howrar ,

I've heard Elon Musk (or was it Karpathy?) talking about how camera should be sufficient for all scenarios because humans can do it on vision alone, but that's poor reasoning IMO. Cars are not humans, so there's no reason to confine them to the same limitations. If we want them to be safer and more capable than human drivers, one way to do that is by providing them with more information.

KingThrillgore ,
@KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml avatar

We built things like Lidars and ultrasound because we want better than our eyes at depth and sight.

SirEDCaLot ,

This is 100% correct.
Look at the average rate of crashes per mile driven with autopilot versus a human. If the autopilot number is lower, they're doing it right and should be rewarded and NHTSA should leave them be. If the autopilot number is higher, then yes by all means bring in the regulation or whatever.

flerp ,

Humans are extremely flawed beings and if your standard for leaving companies alone to make as much money as possible is that they are at least minimally better than extremely flawed, I don't want to live in the same world as you want to live in.

AdrianTheFrog ,
@AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world avatar

Having anything that can save lives over an alternative is an improvement. In general. Yes, we should be pushing for safer self driving, and regulating that. But if we can start saving lives now, then sooner is better than later.

flerp ,

I'm not sure if that was supposed to be in agreement or countering what I said.

Over the past few decades, some people have noticed and commented on the enormous death toll that our reliance on driving and the vast amount of driving hours spent on our roads and said that that amount of death is unacceptable. Nothing has ever been able to come of it because of that aforementioned reliance on driving that our society has. Human nature cannot be the thing that changes, we can't expect humans to behave differently all of a sudden nor change their ability to focus and drive safely.

But this moment in time, when the shift from human to machine drivers is happening, the time when we shift from beings incapable of performing better on a global scale, to machines able to avoid the current death tolls due to their ability to be vastly more precise than humans, this is the time to reduce that death toll.

If we allow companies to get away with removing sensors from their cars which results in lower safety just so that said company can increase their bottom line, I consider that unacceptable even if the death toll is slightly lower than human driven cars if it could be greatly lower than human driven cars.

SirEDCaLot ,

One company says they can build FSD with 15 sensors and sensor fusion. Another company says they can build FSD with just cameras. As I see it, the development path doesn't matter, it's the end result that matters.

SirEDCaLot ,

It is not my place or yours or the governments to tell people how to spend their money or not.
It IS our place to ensure that companies aren't producing products that kill people.

Thus money doesn't matter here. What matters is whether or not FSD is more dangerous than a human. If it is, it should be prohibited or only used under very monitored conditions. If it is equal or better than a human, IE same or fewer accident / fatalities per mile driven, then Tesla should be allowed to sell it, even if it is imperfect.

In the US we have a free market. Nobody is obligated to pay for FSD or use it. People can vote with their wallet whether they think it's worth the money or not, THAT is what determines if Tesla makes more money or not. It's up to each individual customer to decide if it's worth it. That's their choice not mine or yours.

As I see it, in a free market what Tesla has to prove is that their system doesn't make things worse. If they can, if they can prove they're not making roads more dangerous IE no need to ban it, then it's a matter between them and their customer.

mojofrododojo ,

this is bullshit.

A human can be held accountable for their failure, bet you a fucking emerald mine Musk won't be held accountable for these and all the other fool self drive fuckups.

sabin ,

So you'd rather live in a world where people die more often, just so you can punish the people who do the killing?

mojofrododojo ,

That's a terrifically misguided interpretation of what I said, wow.

LISTEN UP BRIGHT LIGHTS, ACCOUNTABILITY ISN'T A LUXURY. It's not some 'nice to have add-on'.

Musk's gonna find out. Gonna break all his fanboys' hearts too.

sabin ,

Nothing was misguided and if anything your tone deaf attempt to double down only proves the point I'm making.

This stopped being about human deaths for you a long time ago.

Let's not even bother to ask the question of whether or not this guy could ultimately be saving lives. All that matters to you is that you have a target to take your anger out on the event that a loved one dies in an accident or something.

You are shallow beyond belief.

mojofrododojo ,

This stopped being about human deaths for you a long time ago.

Nope, it's about accountability. The fact that you can't see how important accountability is just says you're a musk fan boy. If Musk would shut the fuck up and do the work, he'd be better off - instead he's cheaping out left and right on literal life dependent tech, so tesla's stock gets a bump. It's ridiculous, like your entire argument.

sabin ,

I don't give a fuck about musk. I think hos Hyperloop is beyond idiotic and nothing he makes fucking works. In fact I never even said I necessarily think the state of Tesla autopilot is acceptable. All I said was that categorically rejecting autopilot (even for future generations where tech can be much better) for the express purpose of being able to prosecute people is beyond empty and shallow.

If you need to make up lies about me and strawman me to disagree you only prove my point. You stopped being a rational agent who weighs the good and bad of things a long time ago. You don't care about how good the autopilot is or can be. All you care about is your mental fixation against the CEO of the company in question.

Your political opinions should be based on principles, not whatever feels convenient in the moment.

mojofrododojo ,

You stopped being a rational agent who weighs the good and bad of things a long time ago.

sure thing, you stan musk for no reason, and call me irrational. pfft. gonna block you now, tired of your bullshit

TypicalHog ,

Where did I say that a human shouldn't be held accountable for what their car does?

Numberone , (edited )

Is linked to excess deaths? Technically it could be saving lives at a population scale. I doubt that's the case, but it could be. I'll read the article now and find out.

Edit: it doesn't seem to say anything regarding "normal" auto related deaths. They're focusing on the bullshit designation of an unfinished product as "autopilot",and a (small) subset of specific cases that are particularly aggregious, where there were 5-10 seconds of lead time into an incident. In these cases a person who was paying attention wouldn't have been in the accident.

Also some clarity edits.

NikkiDimes ,

Well, did you find out?

Tja ,

OP should come back in one hour and say "nvm, I found out".

Numberone ,

Added, sorry for the delay.

Tja ,

Well, you kissed an opportunity for some Lols and gave us boring information instead. Boo!

Numberone ,

And now you know something about me😋

Numberone ,

Added. Sorry for the delay.

TypicalHog ,

As I said! People in this thread are dumb (IMO). If they read the article they would literally see most of these crashes were because of autopilot misuse. I'm highly confident even with these deaths - there would be more then this if there was no autopilot at all and if these people were driving manually. I got no data on this but that's just my hunch.

NarrativeBear ,

Cars linked to hundreds of crashes, dozens of deaths.

NutWrench ,
@NutWrench@lemmy.world avatar

"self-driving cars" are not going to be a thing within our lifetimes. It's a problem that requires MUCH smarter AIs than we currently have.

Martineski ,

To say that FSD won't be a thing in next ~70-90 years is insane to me. Lol

NarrativeBear ,

Some of us are 30-45 and not 6-16

Martineski ,

He said "within our lifetimes" so it only makes sense that I assumed that he's talking about currently living generations and not himself or a specific generation. :p

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •