Hacker News Reader

Comment by blub | Hacker News Reader

"Tesla's safety record" is misleading:

* every update to the software makes the record irrelevant, because one is no longer driving the same car which set the previous record. Lane centering for instance was introduced in an OTA update and it likely contributed to this accident.

* most of the safe miles driven by Teslas are not with autopilot on. The NTSB explicitly said they did not test autopilot.

* finally, some HN users did the math and it turns out that humans have overall a better safety record than autopilot Teslas.

To me it looks like Tesla's communication is only reflective of covering their asses. From blaming that journalist to the latest accident.

Note: I work for a Tesla competitor.

View on HN

I agree that there are aspects of the Tesla safety record which have caveats, but even when I take those caveats into account, I still come out thinking of the Tesla as being relatively safe. The same feature which adds danger at every update is one that also has the potential to add safety at every update. Eventually for example, that same update feature is expected to bring the car to the point of being superhuman in its ability to drive safely. The inability to rely on the autopilot means that I'm still responsible for my own safety, so the autopilot safety isn't as important as the car's safety in general.

I disagree that their communication is only reflective of them covering their ass. I feel their is the expectation that self-driving is going to prevent more deaths than it causes. Especially as the technology improves, but even to an extent now if only through the virtue of it not being a system people should be using without being ready to intervene.

Don't get me wrong here, you raise good points. I just don't think it's a case of blatant evil.

Also, if you have the link to the math, I'd love to read it.

>The same feature which adds danger at every update is one that also has the potential to add safety at every update...

You don't work in software, right?

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116969_tesla-model-3-e...

An ad hominess attack doesn't not trump evidence. My claim is true. The above article talks about an example of an update which improved the safety of the vehicle.

Dude, that is not an attack. Only if you have written software, you ll be aware of how seemingly innocent changes can break it in unexpected ways...And your "proof" article does not change anything...

You question my credentials, while quoting one of my premises. This is, implicitly, an ad hominem argument against the premise you quoted.

In addition to that, you're arguing against a strawman. I never disagreed that there was potential for the safety to be negatively impacted with every update. In fact, I explicitly agreed with this claim.

>I never disagreed that there was potential for the safety to be negatively impacted with every update...

The point you are missing is that while update might be slightly enhance safety, the negative, unpredictable impact might be catastrophic. because one is planned and other one is not.

No, the point you're pretending I'm missing is that there is this potential. You quoted text in which I explicitly acknowledge the danger of updates. Read it. Also, read further down where I explicitly ask that I not be taken the wrong way, because good points were made.

My acknowledgement only make sense if I agree that there is some level of danger in each update. That is why you're addressing a straw man.

I feel like there is a language barrier:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Or maybe you're being uncharitable with me, because as you put it in our other thread you find the things I've said "stupid". So you are just guessing that I hold the stupidest possible belief you can ascribe me, even when I tell you otherwise.

>No, the point you're pretending I'm missing is that there is this potential

No. You are not missing the potential. But you do not seem to get difference in magnitude. One is incremental, reviewed safety enhancement, Other is unpredictably catastrophic.

You only seem to grasp very superficial aspects of my comments, which is why I requested to give some thought before responding. So I think there is some kind of barrier. But it is not of language. but for lack of a better word, I think it is of a lack of enough shared sensibilities..

You're projecting that the projected future upside isn't superhuman. My comment projects that it is. We disagree on projected benefits.

Right now human driving is one of the leading causes of death. I believe that technology can eventually eliminate this as a leading cause of death. So I project a much greater potential upside. I also figure this is a matter of time and effort applied to the problem. Or in other words, there is a finite amount of time before an update brings the car to this point. This puts a ceiling on my mental tabulation of the amount of risk endured prior to achieving an extremely good end. So despite the severe risks, the limited nature of that risk allows me to rule in favor of taking the risk despite its presence.

You're assuming that I haven't pictured a sweeping update which adds the car murdering anyone who was unaware. I have! Your assumption is incorrect.

And if I was being superficial, I would have answered that yes, I'm a software developer. But its a fallacious appeal to authority.

Your first point is absolutely misleading. You can apply the same logic to the other cars saying that they are all different because of the different tyres, the different conditions of the tyres, of the brakes, the different degree of care and so on. You can’t just say that they are not the same cars because of the different variables.

I think OTA driving software updates are a bigger variable than tires. I think you would too if you think about it more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com