Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

That article says:

"The upshot is that Autopilot might, in fact, be saving a ton of lives. Or maybe not. We just don’t know."

...which doesn't support the claim that banning Tesla's autopilot would be a net positive.

Maybe the effect is zero-sum, which means that preventing the deaths where Autopilot did wrong by banning Autopilot, means that other people would die, because Autopilot saved them from a situation they would have crashed in.

If Tesla's Autopilot is demonstrably net negative, then yes, it should be banned, and banning it would save lives.

But if it's currently zero-sum, we should absolutely allow it, we should absolutely allow it to be improved, because improvements to the system will probably tip it over into net positive.

It is absolutely concerning that the company is trying to spin the tech as already being net positive, without any clear evidence of that, yes, I agree. If the tech were net negative, and they were trying to cover that up, that would be even worse. But that's not the position we're in.




You are correct that the data is redacted, but I think it's a reasonable assumption to assume it's pretty bad for Tesla. If the data painted Tesla in a favorable light, they would be force-feeding it down our throats. They would do everything they could to let everybody know "here is the data proving we are safer."

Instead they are burying it behind legal procedures and doing everything they can to make sure nobody knows what the actual data says.

I cannot deny that I do not know anything with certainty. But it's more than just a guess that autopilot is not what's it's advertised to be.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: