Why do so many people want to ban FSD Beta from public roads every time it almost causes an accident, when we usually don't take away people's driver's licenses even when they do cause accidents?
Treat the Tesla FSD as a human driver and it would've had its license revoked many years ago. It's only through close supervision by humans that accidents have been as infrequent as they have been.
The clip in question, if a human hadn't been paying attention, FSD would've knocked a cyclist over - at best. Do that enough times as a human - not many - and you'll be disqualified from driving pretty promptly in most civilised countries.
No single human driver could do this amount of driving, so comparing all FSD mistakes to a single human is an error.
In other words, no, we don't ignore MCAS causing the plane to go into a stall under some isolated circumstance just because humans also put planes into stall.
Please translate.
If you link a twitter video from a driver swerving erratically at cyclists, there will be no shortage of a mob demanding the driver lose his license and be put behind bars.
In this case the driver is an AI, so you respond by banishing all the cars this AI controls, goodbye Tesla FSD.
Huh? Yes, we do?
Of course, I think the solution to this is improving public transport and more aggressively taking away people’s driving licenses, rather than giving autopilot a pass.
My understanding is if you accumulate a certain number of points, it gets taken away. The reason DUI etc. receives such harsh penalties is because the number of accidents DUI has caused makes it obvious that drinking is a factor. It should be the same with "autopilot".
A lot of people simply don't realize that human drivers kill each other by tens of thousands per annum in the US alone, so there's a lot of room for self-driving technology to do a lot of good.
A lot of people are unhappy at being used as unwitting beta testers simply by virtue of having to share the road with beta FSD systems. They have a point, but see the previous one.
Finally, a lot of people question some of the engineering practices at Tesla, such as their refusal to incorporate multiple sensor inputs as failsafes. I'd fall into that category, personally.
There's a lot of room for self-driving technology that actually works to do a lot of good. Tesla's FSD is hot garbage.
Cue up those who think that it's fundamentally impossible to see a downside to anything Tesla does without having a vested financial stake in their failure.
That's categorically false.
Or are you going to claim that many of the people here in this thread, for but one example, are "Short TSLA"?
I'm not. I hold no financial stake in TSLA.
> A lot of people simply don't realize that human drivers kill each other by tens of thousands per annum in the US alone
According to the EMR system at my job, I've been an EMS responder on 378 fatality MVAs, and several thousand more non-fatality. And I still hold my position that Tesla is reckless. Throwing fixes over the fence for safety issues (phantom braking for one recent example) with 48-72 hours since the last update proves beyond any doubt that there's no ethos of thorough testing.
Is that really a good-faith interpretation of my post? Please consider reading it again, the whole thing this time.
In your answer, yes, you do address those things, but (with apologies if that's sincerely not your intent) those are lightly brushed off with a "but people kill in cars, too".
What is not brushed off, and is the first response you have, is entirely about people who have a vested financial interest in the failure of FSD, Tesla, Musk, or some combination of the above. And that's the only response you don't brush off with a "well, but". For but one example, in our marketplace, for better or worse, short selling is an entirely valid tool (though I'm not particularly a fan, and don't even start me on naked short selling).
So given that it's the first response you have, and it's a common refrain, "oh, people just want to see it fail", then it's not necessarily unexpected that I might express frustration at the discussion not paying much mind to the technology itself.
But as said, if that's not really your intent, my sincere apologies.
While you're right in the general case, the presence of "$TSLAQ" in the original tweet means that the author of it almost certainly does have a vested financial stake in their failure.