this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
301 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
59235 readers
4176 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Autopilot is not safe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/10/tesla-autopilot-crashes-elon-musk/
Driving a car is not safe. 40000 people die on car crashes every year in the US alone. Nothing in that article indicates that autopilot/FSD is more dangerous than a human driver. Just that they're flawed systems as is expected. It's good to keep in mind that 99.99% safety rating means 33000 accidents a year in the US alone.
You can't just put something on the streets without first verifying it's safe and working as intended. This is missing for Autopilot. And the data that's piling up is showing that Autopilot is deadly.
First of all what is it that you consider safe? I'm sure you realize that 100% safety rating is just fantasy so what is the acceptable rate of accidents for you?
Secondly would you mind sharing the data "that's piling up is showing that Autopilot is deadly" ? Reports of individual incidents is not what I'm asking for because as I stated above; you're not going to get 100% safety so there's always going to be individual incidents to talk about.
You also seem to be talking about FSD beta and autopilot interchangeably thought they're a different thing. Hope you realize this.
There are very strict regulations around what is allowed to be in the streets and what isn't. This is what protects us from sloppy companies releasing unsafe stuff in the streets.
Driver assist features like the Autopilot are operating in a regulatory grey zone. The regulation has not caught up with technology and this allows companies like Tesla to release unsafe software in the streets, killing people.
Exactly. Driver assist features. These aren't something to be blindly relied on and everyone knows this and the vehicle will remind you. Every crash is fault of the driver - not the system.
Now if you don't mind showing me the data that's "piling up is showing that Autopilot is deadly"
Except Tesla isn't selling them as such. Theid advertisement videos as early as 2016 say "the driver is not necessary, the car is driving itself". This is false marketing in its purest and simplest form: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/17/tesla-self-driving-video-staged-testimony-senior-engineer
I'm still waiting for the data that you said is piling up. You also did not specify what number of accidents you find acceptable for a self driving system. It's almost like you're trying to evade my questions..
Give me a breakn The WaPo article is linked above. Also, when it comes to safety, the burden of proof is on those arguing that something is safe.
If there's piles of data it shouldn't be difficult to prove it's unsafe.
You still haven't even specified what is considered safe.
It's in the weapon article you were already linked, you just keep choosing to ignore it. Another user on my blocked list.
Do you think Tesla would get sued if the data wasn't piling up?
Driving is not safe. These systems could be improved upon, but they've also saved numerous lives by preventing accidents from occurring in the first place. The example in the OP happened while this driver was sitting behind the wheel watching a movie. The first example in your article occurred with a driver behind the wheel. If either of them had been driving a 1995 Honda Civic, these accidents would have occurred just the same, but would anyone be demanding that Honda is to blame?
No, we would (rightfully so) blame the driver for merging into a semi truck that from my understanding was clearly visible.
There is no data to make this claim. You're just making this up.
Give me a break. You think all these companies are dumping billions of dollars into technology that doesn't work? You're making stuff up. Go watch some dashcam videos on YouTube if you want some proof.
Are you kidding me? I never said it will never work. But that does not mean its current state is safe to trust your life.
You did in fact just say that by saying that I was making up the fact that these systems have saved lives. Moving the goalposts to "you can't trust your life to it" doesn't make your original argument anymore accurate nor does it reference anything in dispute. Nobody said you should trust your life to cruise control.
Nobody did indeed say you should trust your life to cruise control.
But Tesla did claim you could trust your life to autopilot because "the car basically drives itself", which it obviously didn't.
Tesla didn't claim that. Musk claimed their early FSD "basically drove itself" in what appears to have been a staged demonstration. This accident and lawsuit are about Autopilot, which is a completely different system.
There is no doubt that one day these systems will be so good that they will make transportation much safer. But there is no data that shows that we're already there.
Actually there is some doubt about that. Completely irrelevant to the present either way though.
You mean you've done zero research on the topic before injecting your opinions, so you simply haven't seen any data?
https://thedriven.io/2023/04/27/accident-rate-for-tesla-80-lower-than-us-average-with-fsd/
https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/3219570/The-Potential-Benefits-of-LKAS-in-Australia-MUARC-Report-365.pdf
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27624313/
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/vehicle-safety-features-accidents/
We're not talking about ADAS in general, we're talking about what Tesla is selling.
What Tesla is selling was covered in the first link. If you disagree, either provide proof to the contrary or quit "making things up."
That first link is Tesla advertisement, not independently acquired data. It's worthless.
I thought you were all about sourced information though. Where's your evidence that it's inaccurate?
What is the evidence that is it accurate? Is there any reason to trust Tesla's advertisements?
Ah, you have no evidence to back your argument up so you're just going to dig your heels in and quite hypocritically make unfounded claims. Got it.
Autopilot has been around for nearly a decade now but "it doesn't work" and you're the only person on the planet to figure it out in all that time, which is why you can't provide any proof. I'll bet you acquired this super secret knowledge without ever setting foot inside a Tesla too, right?
You're the one making unfounded claims. Tesla advertisements are not data.
So prove it or stop making things up. Show us data proving that Teslas crash at the same rate as all those vehicles without ADAS systems. Should be easy for someone so confident in their (thus far) completely unfounded and unsourced opinion. You haven't been able to provide a single shred of evidence backing your claim. Why is that? Where is the independent verification for your claim since that's something important to you?
Seeing cars pile up on the San Francisco tunnel due to Tesla's phantom breaking crap is good enough reason.
Yet you have failed to provide a single drop of evidence to support the disinformation you're spewing.
Lol so when you rear-end someone, it's the fault of the person in front? Not sure where you learned how to drive, but they failed you.
The phantom braking is an issue, but again that's another example of the driver failing to control their vehicle. Like all other systems, Autopilot warns you multiple times when it's going to disengage.
Funny you claim I've failed to provide a single drop of evidence when I've posted numerous links. You're, what, ten comments in now, having demanded evidence numerous times, yet have failed to provide even a single link to back any of your made-up claims. That's pretty telling and a bit embarrassing if you ask me.
Haha, go away troll. Your links are Tesla advertisements, and yes if you break in fast flowing traffic you are at fault and you will cause an accident.
Lol the only relevant link is the first one, which comes from Teslas cherry picked and thoroughly disproven data set.
Absolutely. Heard of the F22?