Don't text and autopilot on level 3, which is a nascent technology. An engineer should know better. Wonder why a level 3 is allowed to market as an 'autopilot'.
Maaaaybe? I'm not a hydraulic engineer and won't pretend to be one. So I hire plumbers when things go wrong. If they screw up, I don't tend to blame myself though. I think the same logic would apply to the deceased.
Nobody at Tesla claims that this is a failsafe system. In fact, they specifically tell you to be ready to take over at any time. That is not a system I would rely upon, personally.
Are companies bound to only selling failsafe products? Of course not, we'd never get anything done.
I do find it somewhat immoral that Tesla are using their customers as beta testers for this, but nobody has been forced into this. Nobody is forced to use Autopilot.
I think something about responsibility changes at scale.
If a Tesla was a bespoke machine, I'd have no issues. But they know that if they position a feature and posture just-so-and-so, a certain fraction of their customers will get it "the wrong way". What did they do to alleviate this?
In California every building has a sign affixed that warns of carcinogens within, does that mean you never go indoors? No, it means you learn to ignore safety warnings.
For some reason "Apple engineer" is used a lot (see title) in discussions around this on both ends (i.e. "he was an engineer and thus knew his stuff/was credible, and he voiced some concerns to friends/family, so let's agree with it being Tesla's fault" vs. "he was an engineer and should have known/anticipated the system's caveats"). The thing is you cannot have it both ways, so I think (and I think we agree) we should not appeal to the driver being an engineer at all.
Being an engineer should only add value to his comments about an engineered technology. His complaint was made from a position of software expertise and familiarity with technology.
His inability to anticipate the system's caveat that led to his death is a testament to the unpredictability (from the user's perspective) of the vehicle's behavior.
> Wonder why a level 3 is allowed to market as an 'autopilot'.
The argument I have heard (Which I disagree with) is that "Autopilots" in aviation (where the term comes from) does not mean "You can go to sleep" but still needs constant monitoring.
Therefore calling this "Autopilot" is technically correct and therefore accurate.
My argument that the technical definition and the definition known by the general public (Which seems to be closer to the sleepy-time definition) is different enough that calling it "Autopilot" is dangerously misleading.
reply