Also, the robotaxi has been live for all of a day and there's already footage of it driving on the wrong side of the road: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s-h0YXtF0c&t=420s

I just don't know how they're getting away with calling it 'full self driving' if it's not fully self driving.

You all don't seem to understand, this is just the cost of progress!

Hope no one was hurt,
regardless whether they're stupid, distracted or whatever!
If we can't build fail-saves into cars, what are our chances for real AI?

I am all in on testing these devices and improving waay before they recommend fully giving into AI

Where's the video?

Yeaaaaah, I mean fuck Tesla for a variety of reasons, but right here we're looking at a car that drove itself onto a set of train tracks, continued down the train tracks, and the people inside did...nothing? Like, they grabbed their shit and got out when it got stuck. The car certainly should not have done this, but this isn't really a Tesla problem. It'll definitely be interesting when robotaxis follow suit though.

I didn't keep track of how that lawsuit turned out.

That said, it is labeled "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)" on everything in the car.

Supervised as in you have to be ready to stop this kind of thing. That's what the supervision is.

Okay I don't want to directly disagree with you I just want to add a thought experiment:

If it is a fundamental truth of the universe, a human can literally not program a computer to be smarter than a human (because of some Neil deGrasse Tyson-esq interpretation of entropy), then no matter what AI's will crash cars as often as real people.

And the question of who is responsible for the AI's actions will always be the person because people can take responsibility and AI's are just machine-tools. This basically means that there is a ceiling to how autonomous self-driving cars will ever be (because someone will have to sit at the controls and be ready to take over) and I think that is a good thing.

Honestly I'm in this camp that computers can never truly be "smarter" than a person in all respects. Maybe you can max out an ai's self-driving stats but then you'll have no points left over for morality, or you can balance the two out and it might just get into less morally challenging accidents more often ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. There are lots of ways to look at this

Elongated Musketon: UM THAT WAS JUST 1 FAULTY MODEL STOP CHERRY PICKING GUYS JUST BUY IT!!!1

Tesla's have a problem with the lefts.

Clearly the train didn't yield properly, time to ban trains.

And maybe an update to the firmware on those expensive Logitech webcams powering the AI.

I’m going to guess this person was simply incredibly fucking stupid

Well, the guy owned a Tesla, it was pretty obvious.

a human can literally not program a computer to be smarter than a human

I'd add that a computer vision system can't integrate new information as quickly as a human, especially when limited to vision-only sensing - which Tesla is strangely obsessed with when the cost of these sensors is dropping and their utility has been proven by waymo's excellent record.

All in all, I see no reason to attempt to replace humans when we have billions. This is doubly so for 'artistic' ai purposes - we have billions of people, let artists create the art.

show me an AI driven system that can clean my kitchen, or do my laundry. that'd be WORTH it.

not if your in a tesslar.

For as much as I’d like to see Tesla stock crash these days, and without judging on the whole autonomous car topic, this IS cherrypicking.

Human drivers aren’t exactly flawless either, but we won’t ban human driven cars because some acts recklessly or other had a seizure while driving.

If statistically self driving cars are safer, I’d rather have them and reduce the risk of coming across another reckless driver.

Tesla's new automatic suicide feature

I think that's called "murder"