577
Tesla knew Autopilot caused death, but didn't fix it
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
577 points (94.9% liked)
Technology
59415 readers
1166 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Probably because calling something "not real" is infuriatingly vague.
Feel free to expand on your position, I actually do want to know what "not real" means in this context.
If you mean, from a semantics perspective, that FULL means it should be a completely independent and autonomous system, bravo, you've made and won the most uninteresting form of that argument.
I mean, don't call your service something it's not? Words should have meaning? Tesla's Autopilot is very impressive, but it's not fully independent, and that's okay. Honestly if it had an accurate name people wouldn't attack it so much. Other manufacturers are gaining similar capabilities but no one is complaining that their cars aren't perfect either.
Autopilot is an accurate name as it takes over the mundane portions of the task. Airline pilots don't just hit a green button on the dash that says "fly" and the autopilot takes over until they hit a red "land" button. You can argue that people have a misconception about the word but the word itself is correct.
It's my understanding that they actually could do that at this point, commerical flying is a controlled and predictable environment compared to driving on the road. Ten years ago I was hearing anecdotes from pilots saying the only thing they do is takeoff and land and even then the computer could handle it just fine if they let it. Maybe the autopilot in a Cesna sucks, but it's pretty much fully automated in an Airbus.
Yeah that's a really tired argument. I agree, they should call it whatever will stop people from arguing about the name. Something super generic and meaningless and uncreative that doesn't encourage conversation. Something like Blue Cruise, ooh, or super cruise!
At least then 99% of the complaints wouldn't be about the least possible interesting part of it
[comment clarification: I confused Autopilot and FSD]
Yeah they should have called it level 2 autonomous driving, like most other mass market car makers do (except Mercedes which have level 3 on the roads). People could then compare the different limits and clearly see what brands are or are not at the forefront of the tech.
I did not know that about Mercedes, so I had to go read about it. Level 3 is huge because that’s when the system is approved to not have constant human monitoring. It’s the difference between being able to read a book or use your phone on a boring trip, even if it might not get you fully door to door on many trips.
It can’t drive you home drunk, and you can’t sleep in your car (you have to be available to take over when requested) but it’s a huge jump in most practical usage.
Realisticaly, i think FSD has the potential to be level 3 officially and probably some car makers have the tech to do it too BUT in the EU, if the car has a level 3 autonomous driving, the car maker becomes legally responsible of accidents when the driving conditions are met ( most EU states limit it to highways). For the time being,only Mercedes had the courage to try it (probably because they have ample knowledge of driving assistance through their trucking production.)