
My Infant Daughter’s Life Shouldn’t Be a Variable in Tesla Autopilot's Beta - okket
https://www.thedrive.com/opinion/28247/my-infant-daughters-life-shouldnt-be-a-variable-in-tesla-autopilots-public-beta
======
JudgeWapner
> my daughter—as well as all of your children—could become just another
> anomaly in the path toward progress.

Wouldja think of the _children_! I'm astonished that this argument-enhancing
cheat-code still flies in 2019. It should be as obvious as "these N-units of
clickbait". If he's so concerned about his daughter, why did he take her out
on a freeway where several lives are lost per year? Why does he allow his
precious daughter to breathe the smog from millions of automobiles in the LA
Basin? I mean, think of the _children_! breathing all that NOx into their
little-children lungs! We need regulation!

The game is stacked against Autonomous tech since the detractors can point to
any incident at which AT is at fault, but AT supporters can't point to the
lives saved by safer decisions, faster reaction times, less emissions, zero
_emotion_ which serves to reduce stress and road rage incidents.

But since those gains are invisible, and people are emotional, hit pieces like
this will always be popular.

~~~
polotics
I am sorry but you are invoking a strawman by claiming the article does a
"think of the children" argument. This is one specific child in one specific
case of narrowly avoiding harm. The example is one clear case of the
technology not being ready, not being likewhat you describe it.

~~~
notus
Even at an unready state it is better than human drivers. People literally
text and drive while going 80 mph on a highway.

~~~
whenchamenia
Maybe shitty human drivers breaking the law, but no, not better than actual
focused drivers. Otherwise the ball is in your court for data. Quit
perpetuating this baseless myth.

------
nsnick
This is yet another hit piece by wallstreet short sellers. Autonomous vehicles
may kill people occasionally, but far less frequently than human driven
vehicles.

~~~
anextomp
The related articles at the bottom of the page make this bias laughably
evident

> Tesla Cost-Cutting Measures so Hardcore Employees Are Bringing Toilet Paper
> From Home

> Tesla's Wall Street Romance Is Over

> Florida Garage Fire Engulfs Tesla, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Porsche, and More

> Tesla’s Navigate on Autopilot 'Raises Serious Safety Concerns,' Consumer
> Reports Says

> Tesla’s Walls Are Closing In As Musk Says Survival Requires ‘Hardcore’
> Measures

~~~
duxup
I don't think "related articles" painting a positive or negative light are
necessarily going to indicate bias.

This is akin to Tump's complaint that any given media outlet doesn't write
enough positive articles about them... that wouldn't indicate a lack of bias
even if they did write them 50/50 or 100/0.

------
eganist
Probably a hit piece, but if we're to analyze the policy changes required here
to mitigate/adjust for risk effectively (and which can be compelled by any
insurance company with worthwhile risk adjusters):

\- Insurance rate deltas for never-on v. ever-on "beta" automated driving
features. This absorbs risk both for the insurance companies as well as on
behalf of the driver.

\- Visible and blatant notices by companies trialing self-driving features
that such features may result in insurance rate adjustments if used as the
features themselves pose not-yet-quantifiable risk.

\- Mandatory reporting by car companies as to who enabled beta self driving
features (accepted the risk) to send to insurance companies if needed e.g. in
the event of a collision.

Don't know which of these would happen first, but frankly, insurance should be
leading the way on appropriately derisking beta-testing self-driving features
since it's... probably an inevitability that these will be tried by drivers on
public roads.

------
devereaux
Maybe not in the beta, as mentioned in the article where there may have been a
risk of imminent collision.

But in the stable version? Yes it should. Your daughter is not more important
than say the newborn twins that may be carried by another car that your car is
about to hit.

Otherwise, you believe that her existance is worth sacrificing N people over -
or hell, even a few million people, and that ain't right.

~~~
kod
Are you a parent?

~~~
devereaux
No. I decided not to have kids after realizing it came with the "risk" of
making me prioritize their life over the life of many more human beings.

I do not want to alter my utility function to favor people simply based on
them having some of my genes, or having been educated by me (so I'm not a
teacher either!)

However, there are many wonderful parents out there - I've read some poignant
stories about parents who went on with organ donation after their kid had a
accident which caused irreversible brain damage. I couldn't picture myself
doing that - which is why I was afraid the "risk" would be very real for me.

------
vkhn
While I don't disagree with regulation of this tech, this is ridiculous take.
Please stop acting like autopilot is more dangerous than all the other drivers
on the road not paying attention.

If you really fear for her safety in a car, stop putting her in a car; or
maybe put her in a Tesla because it's probably safer than the car you're
driving.

------
mLuby
I didn't sign up to be on the road with vehicles that can't control their
speed, like Toyota's fatal "unintended acceleration" bug. Likewise I don't
want to accept risk from drunk or distracted human drivers. But them's the
brakes; Autopilot isn't dramatically different.

------
andrewtbham
If you're interested in the facts...

[https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport](https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport)

[https://hcai.mit.edu/human-side-of-tesla-
autopilot/](https://hcai.mit.edu/human-side-of-tesla-autopilot/)

~~~
duxup
I'm not sure I would assume Tesla's POV here is necessarily "the facts" or
that their safety site really informs much about the article.

~~~
creaghpatr
Are you disputing their data? That's a pretty serious allegation for a
publicly traded company.

~~~
brianpgordon
If you take as gospel every public corporation's PR materials, you should get
in touch with Herbalife; I'm sure they'd love to sell you on a garage full of
overpriced placebos.

------
ribosometronome
My infant daughter's life shouldn't be a variable in a 15 year old learner's
permit driver's beta.

------
_Codemonkeyism
Consumer Reports says (May 2019)

"In practice, we found that the new Navigate on Autopilot lane-changing
feature lagged far behind a human driver’s skills. The feature cut off cars
without leaving enough space, and even passed other cars in ways that violate
state laws [...] As a result, the driver often had to prevent the system from
making poor decisions."

[https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/tesla-
nav...](https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/tesla-navigate-on-
autopilot-automatic-lane-change-requires-significant-driver-intervention/)

------
creaghpatr
>There are in fact other people on the road who haven’t given their tacit
agreement to be beta testers, like my daughter.

No shit, that would be the job of the parent.

See: Pedophastry

[https://medium.com/incerto/pedophrasty-bigoteering-and-
other...](https://medium.com/incerto/pedophrasty-bigoteering-and-other-modern-
scams-c84bd70a29e8)

~~~
duxup
I don't think the parent agreed either, and certainly the other divers out
there didn't.

~~~
creaghpatr
The parent is an adult and as such can make their own decisions about whether
roads are too scary to drive on.

~~~
duxup
I'm not sure that really jives with the statement in the article and really
just boils down to "people can test what they want just don't drive then" and
I don't think that is workable.

------
mromanuk
he doesn't like contingency written down and measured, so he is advocating for
hidden variables with randomized content: better keep the status quo and keep
hitting with [drunk/sleepy/angry] people

------
AimForTheBushes
What's riskier, human or automated drivers?

391 Ohio Traffic Deaths YTD, all of which human caused.

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
Automated drivers.

Consumer Reports says (May 2019)

"In practice, we found that the new Navigate on Autopilot lane-changing
feature lagged far behind a human driver’s skills. The feature cut off cars
without leaving enough space, and even passed other cars in ways that violate
state laws [...] As a result, the driver often had to prevent the system from
making poor decisions."

[https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/tesla-
nav...](https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/tesla-navigate-on-
autopilot-automatic-lane-change-requires-significant-driver-intervention/)

------
Overtonwindow
Seems like a hit piece. We are al variables when it comes to making vehicles
safer.

------
Causality1
So his evidence the car was on autopilot is that the driver didn't have his
hands on the wheel? Plenty of people do that in cars with no driver assist at
all.

------
JungleGymSam
Fear is a powerful emotion and we shouldn't let it govern our lives.
Statistics say that something bad will happen to someone at some point.

Unless Teshla's are causing an _increase_ in car collisions, I see no reason
to be this upset about it.

The author's fear, _of something that didn't happen_, has gripped them. It
would be one thing if his daughter were killed as a result of a collision with
a Tesla, that was operating on AutoPilot, but it didn't even happen. This
person shouldn't even by driving at all.

