You could certainly argue that the software should be designed to, above all else, not hit stationary objects. But it is not actually designed that way.
It was not designed to work under human supervision, but even if it was, that design was wrong, and the design was broken from the start.
"Digital control of motors, brakes, and steering helps avoid collisions from the front and sides, and prevents the car from wandering off the road."
It's designed to avoid collisions from the front and sides.
And you're still ignoring the part where I said it doesn't matter if it was designed intentionally this way or not, it shouldn't behave this way, regardless.
As for ignoring the other part, I explicitly acknowledged in my original reply that this would be a valid criticism, and it's not something I feel strongly enough about to argue.
When?
I don't know how else to understand that other than that it was designed to work without human supervision. If that's not what you meant, perhaps you could elaborate.
Tesla cars are not designed to run into things.
From your quote upthread:
> "Digital control of motors, brakes, and steering helps avoid collisions from the front and sides, and prevents the car from wandering off the road."
(Emphasis mine.)
Notice the shift in language from "helps avoid" to "prevents" when describing the two different aspects of the car's thrust and positioning systems. The different is significant and important. It's clear that the systems are a front and side collision assistance system, not a front and side collision prevention system.
You see the distinction?
Are you suggesting collision detection is not designed to prevent collisions?
Lol. Okay, dude.
For example, a kitchen knife is not designed to kill people, but it also wasn't designed to prevent itself from being used to kill people.
I think you need to reevaluate your definition of "as designed". Because it's pretty clear that the Tesla was not designed to avoid this collision. It's not a software failure.
They don't prefer their car to hit stuff, but the car is not designed to never hit stuff either. By your logic, any car manufacturer that doesn't have some sort of collision prevention system prefer their cars to hit stuff, which is absurd.
Are you basically saying a bulletproof vest has failed to achieve its design goal if it can't stop armour-piercing rounds? Or a fire extinguisher has failed to achieve its design goal if it can't put out a wild forest fire? There are always limitations to everything.
If so, I think it's possible the customer was not made aware of the safety implications and limitations of the system.