this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2024
884 points (95.8% liked)

Technology

59608 readers
4049 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. 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
[–] TypicalHog@lemm.ee 11 points 7 months ago (28 children)

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

[–] NIB@lemmy.world 47 points 7 months ago (17 children)

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

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 7 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://www.piped.video/watch?v=Gm2x6CVIXiE

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Geobloke@lemm.ee 22 points 7 months ago

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

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] TypicalHog@lemm.ee 0 points 7 months ago

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

[–] sabin@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

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

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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@lemm.ee -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.today 1 points 6 months ago

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@lemmy.today 1 points 6 months ago

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.

load more comments (24 replies)