This is about as predictable a failure as passwordless logins. If you can't secure your software product against it being used outside its intended use case, then stop, go back, you fucked up.
To me, how is this different than someone using cruise control on a 1999 car and reading a newspaper while he blows through stop signs and smashes into a wall. Driver error, reset try again.
Difference is that Elon Musk has claimed since 2016 that this technology will be ready next year. And that it drives safer than a human. And Tesla calls it things like fully autonomous driving and autopilot. Which clearly indicates the car can drive itself safely, when it's not even close.
You're absolutely right, but I want to add that there are meaningful, practical differences as well.
The reality is that cruise control doesn't tend to create accidents because by its very nature it still requires an almost constant level of engagement from the driver. There are very few places where you can run a vehicle on cruise with literally zero user input for more than a few minutes without starting to veer off the road. It assists the driver, but it doesn't replace their role.
FSD does replace the driver, right up until the moment where the driver needs to step in and correct it. Psychologically, this is a very different interaction. Automation blindness kicks in. If we spend 99% of our time trusting the actions of the machine it becomes very, very difficult to maintain enough focus and attentiveness to recognise the 1% of times when we need to override the machine (this happens in all instances of human oversight over automated processes).
An important difference is that cruise control is simpler to understand. It's a basic mechanic dressed up as a driver aid. A smaller slice of the population will incorrectly use cruise control.
FSD is a driver aid dressed up as... well, "Full Self-Driving." It's not Full, and it's not Self-Driving. It's mostly functional in limited circumstances and even then requires driver attention.
I think another good example is how people would never allow a Stasi agent to live in their house, unless the Stasi agent was redefined as a slew of websites, a collection of disparate laws, and multiple steps involving technology.
This is talking about Autopilot not FSD.
Autopilot and FSD are not the same thing though. Autopilot is just TACC + lane-keeping, it's not advertised as a full self-driving feature.
Exactly. Or, using the adaptive cruise control and lane keeping that many cars have these days. (Regular) Autopilot is becoming less of a unique feature of Teslas.
I would like to believe (but lack data to point to to support it) that ADAS is making roads safer overall. There are cases that aren't covered yet, and driver complacency is a problem for those, but so is complacency in a driver's belief that they can stare at a phone in their lap but not drift out of their lane and cause an accident, which is something ADAS will protect against.
To drive a car, a driver must:
Cruise control can:
Autopilot can:
Which one sounds like it drives the car on its own? Which one is clearly misunderstood by the average driver due to a reference to a feature in an industry experienced by very few people by comparison?
Maybe that's what Elon Musk meant, when he claimed AI is dangerous for humanity.
IMHO this comes down to how those features are sold and explained to drivers:
if Tesla expects drivers to read through the manual and understand how FSD and autopilot work in order to use them safely it's on Tesla. People simply don't do it (not for Tesla or any other cars) and you have to make sure your features are intuitive and easy to understand. If they are not you're doing it wrong
if this is explained clearly to people when they buy the car, there are warning messages and clear instructions and people still use them wrong it's on the drivers. There will always be stupid drivers, you should not disable new features just because 1% of drivers are too stupid to use them.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
After a long day of fishing in Key Largo, Fla., Dillon Angulo and Naibel Benavides Leon pulled to the side of the road and hopped out of their Chevy Tahoe to look at the stars.
The crash is one of at least eight fatal or serious wrecks involving Tesla Autopilot on roads where the driver assistance software could not reliably operate, according to a Post analysis of two federal databases, legal records and other public documents.
While NHTSA has several ongoing investigations into the company and specific crashes, critics argue the agency’s approach is too reactive and has allowed a flawed technology to put Tesla drivers — and those around them — at risk.
In a sworn deposition last year first detailed by Reuters and obtained by The Post, Tesla’s head of Autopilot, Ashok Elluswamy, said he was unaware of any document describing limitations on where and under what conditions the feature could operate.
Tesla’s commitment to driver independence and responsibility is different from some competitors, whose driver-assistance technologies are loaded with high-definition maps with rigorous levels of detail that can tip vehicles off to potential roadway hazards and obstructions.
In 2021, NTSB sent another letter to NHTSA about Autopilot, calling on the agency to “include sensible safeguards, protocols, and minimum performance standards to ensure the safety of motorists and other vulnerable road users.”
The original article contains 2,180 words, the summary contains 224 words. Saved 90%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
No shit...
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
