Do you test the Autopilot feature? Wouldn't creating a much safer vehicle be real progress? How is it progress for a machine to decapitate you? What value is an Autopilot if it kills you?
What you don't understand is deploying a driving assistance feature is probably the fastest and most efficient way of improving the system because it is the fastest way to collect huge amounts of data. When used properly (As the machine reminds you each time you use it), it should always be a safer option than regular driving with the added benefit of providing valuable data to improve the system.
You should rephrase your question to: "What value is an Autopilot if it kills you when you use it in a way it explicitly told you not to?"
Interestingly, curious if that's why Tesla equipped cars with sensors before enabling autopilot as a user option. Hypothetically, can't see why they couldn't have downloaded the autopilot code to cars and been running it in ghost mode while users drove, generating faults whenever errors were encountered and sending the relevant sensor data back home.
Deep plowing was probably the fastest and most efficient way to farm the Great Plains because you could quickly and easily turn up huge tracts of fertile land.
Then the dust storms came.
What value is an Autopilot that knows you are not using it the way you are supposed to, but keeps accelerating you anyway?
Good point. An autopilot, whose sole purpose is learning, should make sure the user is engaged so it's provided correcting feedback.
>What is important is: what are the odds of getting decapitated while driving vs. autopilot.
Such odds are pretty much impossible to calculate. We know of one instance where a Tesla intentionally drove into a situation where decapitation was inevitable. It happens to manual drivers as well, but not typically without additional circumstances (high speeds, prior crash/accident). Usually if your head is about to impact something, you will react quickly enough to save it.
That's is patently false since 30K people die in car collisions every year in the US alone. Stop focusing on the anecdote, the one death, and look at the numbers.
> I used the word three times. All in highly relevant questions.
They are all irrelevant because they focus on the one, the individual, the act, the emotional.
That's not how good policy is made.
>They are all irrelevant because they focus on the one, the individual, the act, the emotional.
I can parse this sentence, but I don't know what it means. The act, the emotional?