7 ms·

Drivers fault 100%. But Tesla is not blameless with their marketing "Autopilot", "Full self driving", blah blah, giving people a false sense of security. I can

Drivers fault 100%. But Tesla is not blameless with their marketing "Autopilot", "Full self driving", blah blah, giving people a false sense of security. I can't think of a worse problem to try and solve with AI. GPT hallucinates and gives a wrong fact. No biggie, but annoying. Tesla FSD hallucinates and runs over a child, a biggie.

GGO 2y ago
Exactly. Tesla shares responsibility for marketing something deceptively that can cause serious incidents. We require toy manufacturers to put clear labels that the toy is not appropriate for certain ages, but allow Tesla to market something as dangerous as Autopilot and FSD, implying that the user is not needed.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Tesla shares responsibility for marketing something deceptively that can cause serious incidents The driver is criminally liable to the estate of the young man he killed. Tesla may be liable for money damages to the driver they misled. (Maybe the estate also has a civil claim on Tesla if they can show its marketing was grossly negligent.)
  - abduhl 2y ago
    Why are you so sure that criminal liability ends with the driver? Washington’s first degree manslaughter law requires “recklessly caus[ing] the death of another person.” Second degree requires merely causing the death of another person “with criminal negligence.” Criminal negligence requires Tesla to “fail to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur” and that this failure be “a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.” It’s certainly not hard to make the case for either, especially given Tesla’s apparent inaction after a number of people have died while Autopilot is active and a number of accidents have occurred while Autopilot is active. Cf the Crumbleys: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68223118 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68223118 Also a pedantic point: the driver is civilly liable to the estate. Criminal charges (and hence criminal liability) can only be brought by the state.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Why are you so sure that criminal liability ends with the driver? I'm not. But it would be precedent setting. Given this case has the driver admitting to cops that he was distracted in a way Tesla's user manual presumably tells you not to be, I'm not sure I'd start here. > pedantic point: the driver is civilly liable to the estate You're right, I was being loose with my words.
- ahahahahah 2y ago
  I would additionally apportion some blame to the YouTubers who cherry pick fsd footage and make ridiculous claims about how good it is, especially those who also use defeat devices so they can do it with their hands off the wheels.
  - GGO 2y ago
    The big difference is that Tesla is the manufacturer and thus has much higher credibility (and responsibility not to deceive), than a random YouTube video.
breadwinner 2y ago
If Tesla is not blameless, then it is not driver's fault 100%. Total blame cannot exceed 100%.
- phrop 2y ago
  But it can and often does. They do not "share" the blame, but are both at fault (IMHO).
- throwup238 2y ago
  It's not like the juries of two different cases get together and decide how to proportion the penalty.
  - breadwinner 2y ago
    Depends on the jurisdiction. Some states allow fault to be apportioned to third parties, and some forbid it entirely. [1] [1] https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/litigation/contributory-negligence-and-apportionment-of-fault/ https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/litigation/contributor...
- nix0n 2y ago
  There are plenty of situations where total blame adds up to less than 100%, where multiple people make honest mistakes. This situation is the opposite of that, because multiple people were knowingly reckless. Edit: By "multiple people" I mean the driver and Elon.
- LZ_Khan 2y ago
  I feel like 100% is not meant to be taken literally here.
  - robcohen 2y ago
    I vote for letting numbers be literal.
    - saagarjha 2y ago
tantalor 2y ago
<ianal>Clearly FSD is defective if it correctly doesn't plow into motorcycles most of the time, but fails in some low % of cases. That's products liability lawsuit, and some attribution of the fault in this case (idk 1-10%?)
- csa 2y ago
  > Clearly FSD is defective FSD is not Autopilot. FSD does a pretty good job of pedestrian and cyclist identification. It’s supposed to. Autopilot (which is what I use most)… I dunno… I’ve never had a problem in SF, LA, or Vegas.
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    Doesn't it seem weird that Autopilot and FSD might be using different obstacle recognition systems? The inputs (sensors) are identical, so why would Autopilot's obstacle recognition be worse?
    - csa 2y ago
      > so why would Autopilot's obstacle recognition be worse? Great question. I don’t know if they are different. FSD is asked to do way more than AP… that’s all I’m certain of.
  - ado__dev 2y ago
    FSD is also much scarier to use because it does ridiculously dangerous stuff all the time. (for me in Vegas, having had it since the original beta) I've stopped using it unless I'm the only person on the road.
    - csa 2y ago
      > FSD is also much scarier to use because it does ridiculously dangerous stuff all the time That was my original experience. It was so bad that I strongly recommended people not get it. That said, the new FSD update (supervised beta) has been super smooth both on the interstate and in town for me. Have you tried it?
belter 2y ago
Clearly an issue they will solve in the next 4 months... \s "Tesla will unveil a robotaxi on August 8, according to Musk" - https://www.engadget.com/tesla-will-unveil-a-robotaxi-on-april-8-according-to-musk-013853363.html https://www.engadget.com/tesla-will-unveil-a-robotaxi-on-apr...
Zambyte 2y ago
> GPT hallucinates and gives a wrong fact. No biggie, but annoying. Sometimes also a biggie: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkadgm/man-dies-by-suicide-after-talking-with-ai-chatbot-widow-says https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkadgm/man-dies-by-suicide-a...
- resource_waste 2y ago
  In a few hundred years, we are going to decide that people are allowed to have agency over their own lives. We are just too primitive/traditional to understand. Anyway, after 6 month health issue, I will literally laugh at people who think there is some value in enduring pain. Children.
belter 2y ago
How many times did Andrej Karpathy sit smiling uncomfortably, by the side of Elon Musk, while he did his loony dance on FSD with no extra comment? I wonder if he feels any responsibility? https://youtu.be/BFdWsJs6z4c https://youtu.be/BFdWsJs6z4c https://youtu.be/i5tjTACY_3Q https://youtu.be/i5tjTACY_3Q
Brybry 2y ago
What if "Autopilot"/"FSD"/computer-assisted driving hallucinates and drivers using it run over children but at a lower rate than people who are not using computer-assisted driving run over children? If progress for automobiles is that it has to be perfect (and not just better) then the only answer is to use automobiles less or have stricter training standards for drivers. I do think there needs to be strong proof that it is better to avoid liability. And I agree Tesla's marketing is bad and should make Tesla liable.
- notyourwork 2y ago
  It’s not called “almost autonomous driving”, it’s named incorrectly and as a result falsely marketed.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > not called “almost autonomous driving”, it’s named incorrectly Article says Autopilot was engaged, not FSD. You can't just check out after engaging autopilot on a plane.
- MadnessASAP 2y ago
  It comes down to the simple fact that somebody is going to hold the liability bag. Tesla and similar obviously are not pushing to take on that liability, courts/legislatures aren't particularly interested in putting that liability on the manufacturers. So that leaves the drivers to try and offload the liability from themselves. Unfortunately drivers are not particularly well equipped to be pushing that liability off themselves so there it stays. Insurance companies are better equipped for that sort of thing but they're only interested in the financial liability. The criminal liability, is definitely not going anywhere anytime soon.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > drivers are not particularly well equipped to be pushing that liability off themselves so there it stays It's premature to conclude this. We don't have enough real-world cases off which to construct a framework. > Insurance companies are better equipped for that sort of thing but they're only interested in the financial liability Even this hasn't been cleanly severed in any competent jurisdiction.
switch007 2y ago
Does the US not regulate marketing? They’ve been lying for years now
FeloniousHam 2y ago
No one who has driven a Tesla with "Autopilot" for 5 minutes is under the delusion that it is a level 5 autonomous driving system. It is amazing and useful, and assuredly makes me a better driver than I am without it. I am begoggled at the scolds who think the "deceptive" branding contained _in a single word_ is sufficient to override the lived experience of driving with this fantastic (if flawed?) tool.

GGO 2y ago

Exactly. Tesla shares responsibility for marketing something deceptively that can cause serious incidents. We require toy manufacturers to put clear labels that the toy is not appropriate for certain ages, but allow Tesla to market something as dangerous as Autopilot and FSD, implying that the user is not needed.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Tesla shares responsibility for marketing something deceptively that can cause serious incidents The driver is criminally liable to the estate of the young man he killed. Tesla may be liable for money damages to the driver they misled. (Maybe the estate also has a civil claim on Tesla if they can show its marketing was grossly negligent.)
- abduhl 2y ago
  Why are you so sure that criminal liability ends with the driver? Washington’s first degree manslaughter law requires “recklessly caus[ing] the death of another person.” Second degree requires merely causing the death of another person “with criminal negligence.” Criminal negligence requires Tesla to “fail to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur” and that this failure be “a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.” It’s certainly not hard to make the case for either, especially given Tesla’s apparent inaction after a number of people have died while Autopilot is active and a number of accidents have occurred while Autopilot is active. Cf the Crumbleys: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68223118 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68223118 Also a pedantic point: the driver is civilly liable to the estate. Criminal charges (and hence criminal liability) can only be brought by the state.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Why are you so sure that criminal liability ends with the driver? I'm not. But it would be precedent setting. Given this case has the driver admitting to cops that he was distracted in a way Tesla's user manual presumably tells you not to be, I'm not sure I'd start here. > pedantic point: the driver is civilly liable to the estate You're right, I was being loose with my words.
ahahahahah 2y ago
I would additionally apportion some blame to the YouTubers who cherry pick fsd footage and make ridiculous claims about how good it is, especially those who also use defeat devices so they can do it with their hands off the wheels.
- GGO 2y ago
  The big difference is that Tesla is the manufacturer and thus has much higher credibility (and responsibility not to deceive), than a random YouTube video.

breadwinner 2y ago

If Tesla is not blameless, then it is not driver's fault 100%. Total blame cannot exceed 100%.

phrop 2y ago
But it can and often does. They do not "share" the blame, but are both at fault (IMHO).
throwup238 2y ago
It's not like the juries of two different cases get together and decide how to proportion the penalty.
- breadwinner 2y ago
  Depends on the jurisdiction. Some states allow fault to be apportioned to third parties, and some forbid it entirely. [1] [1] https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/litigation/contributory-negligence-and-apportionment-of-fault/ https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/litigation/contributor...
nix0n 2y ago
There are plenty of situations where total blame adds up to less than 100%, where multiple people make honest mistakes. This situation is the opposite of that, because multiple people were knowingly reckless. Edit: By "multiple people" I mean the driver and Elon.
LZ_Khan 2y ago
I feel like 100% is not meant to be taken literally here.
- robcohen 2y ago
  I vote for letting numbers be literal.
  - saagarjha 2y ago

tantalor 2y ago

<ianal>Clearly FSD is defective if it correctly doesn't plow into motorcycles most of the time, but fails in some low % of cases. That's products liability lawsuit, and some attribution of the fault in this case (idk 1-10%?)

csa 2y ago
> Clearly FSD is defective FSD is not Autopilot. FSD does a pretty good job of pedestrian and cyclist identification. It’s supposed to. Autopilot (which is what I use most)… I dunno… I’ve never had a problem in SF, LA, or Vegas.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  Doesn't it seem weird that Autopilot and FSD might be using different obstacle recognition systems? The inputs (sensors) are identical, so why would Autopilot's obstacle recognition be worse?
  - csa 2y ago
    > so why would Autopilot's obstacle recognition be worse? Great question. I don’t know if they are different. FSD is asked to do way more than AP… that’s all I’m certain of.
- ado__dev 2y ago
  FSD is also much scarier to use because it does ridiculously dangerous stuff all the time. (for me in Vegas, having had it since the original beta) I've stopped using it unless I'm the only person on the road.
  - csa 2y ago
    > FSD is also much scarier to use because it does ridiculously dangerous stuff all the time That was my original experience. It was so bad that I strongly recommended people not get it. That said, the new FSD update (supervised beta) has been super smooth both on the interstate and in town for me. Have you tried it?

belter 2y ago

Clearly an issue they will solve in the next 4 months... \s "Tesla will unveil a robotaxi on August 8, according to Musk" - https://www.engadget.com/tesla-will-unveil-a-robotaxi-on-april-8-according-to-musk-013853363.html https://www.engadget.com/tesla-will-unveil-a-robotaxi-on-apr...

Zambyte 2y ago

> GPT hallucinates and gives a wrong fact. No biggie, but annoying. Sometimes also a biggie: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkadgm/man-dies-by-suicide-after-talking-with-ai-chatbot-widow-says https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkadgm/man-dies-by-suicide-a...

resource_waste 2y ago
In a few hundred years, we are going to decide that people are allowed to have agency over their own lives. We are just too primitive/traditional to understand. Anyway, after 6 month health issue, I will literally laugh at people who think there is some value in enduring pain. Children.

belter 2y ago

How many times did Andrej Karpathy sit smiling uncomfortably, by the side of Elon Musk, while he did his loony dance on FSD with no extra comment? I wonder if he feels any responsibility? https://youtu.be/BFdWsJs6z4c https://youtu.be/BFdWsJs6z4c https://youtu.be/i5tjTACY_3Q https://youtu.be/i5tjTACY_3Q

Brybry 2y ago

What if "Autopilot"/"FSD"/computer-assisted driving hallucinates and drivers using it run over children but at a lower rate than people who are not using computer-assisted driving run over children? If progress for automobiles is that it has to be perfect (and not just better) then the only answer is to use automobiles less or have stricter training standards for drivers. I do think there needs to be strong proof that it is better to avoid liability. And I agree Tesla's marketing is bad and should make Tesla liable.

notyourwork 2y ago
It’s not called “almost autonomous driving”, it’s named incorrectly and as a result falsely marketed.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > not called “almost autonomous driving”, it’s named incorrectly Article says Autopilot was engaged, not FSD. You can't just check out after engaging autopilot on a plane.
MadnessASAP 2y ago
It comes down to the simple fact that somebody is going to hold the liability bag. Tesla and similar obviously are not pushing to take on that liability, courts/legislatures aren't particularly interested in putting that liability on the manufacturers. So that leaves the drivers to try and offload the liability from themselves. Unfortunately drivers are not particularly well equipped to be pushing that liability off themselves so there it stays. Insurance companies are better equipped for that sort of thing but they're only interested in the financial liability. The criminal liability, is definitely not going anywhere anytime soon.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > drivers are not particularly well equipped to be pushing that liability off themselves so there it stays It's premature to conclude this. We don't have enough real-world cases off which to construct a framework. > Insurance companies are better equipped for that sort of thing but they're only interested in the financial liability Even this hasn't been cleanly severed in any competent jurisdiction.

switch007 2y ago

Does the US not regulate marketing? They’ve been lying for years now

FeloniousHam 2y ago

No one who has driven a Tesla with "Autopilot" for 5 minutes is under the delusion that it is a level 5 autonomous driving system. It is amazing and useful, and assuredly makes me a better driver than I am without it. I am begoggled at the scolds who think the "deceptive" branding contained _in a single word_ is sufficient to override the lived experience of driving with this fantastic (if flawed?) tool.