• set_secret@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    7 months ago

    VERGE articles seem to be getting worse over the years, they’ve almost reached Forbes level, yes this does raise some valid safety concerns. No Tesla isn’t bad just because it’s Tesla.

    It doesn’t really give us the full picture. For starters, there’s no comparison with Level 2 systems from other car makers, which also require driver engagement and have their own methods to ensure attention. This would help us understand how Tesla’s tech actually measures up.

    Plus, the piece skips over extremely important stats that would give us a clearer idea of how safe (or not) Tesla’s systems are compared to good old human driving.

    We’re left in the dark about how Tesla compares in scenarios like drunk, distracted, or tired driving—common issues that automation aims to mitigate. (probably on purpose).

    It feels like the article is more about stirring up feelings against Tesla rather than diving deep into the data. A more genuine take would have included these comparisons and variables, giving us a broader view of what these technologies mean for road safety.

    I feel like any opportunity to jump on the Elon hate wagon is getting tiresome. (and yes i hate Elon too).

    • WormFood@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      a more genuine take would have included a series of scenarios (e.g. drunk/distracted/tired driving)

      I agree. they did tesla dirty. a more fair comparison would’ve been between autopilot and a driver who was fully asleep. or maybe a driver who was dead?

      and why didn’t this news article contain a full scientific meta analysis of all self driving cars??? personally, when someone tells me that my car has an obvious fault, I ask them to produce detailed statistics on the failure rates of every comparable car model

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        a driver who was fully asleep. or maybe a driver who was dead?

        why does it need to become a specious comparison for it to be valid in your expert opinion? because those comparisons are worthless.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      A couple of my criticisms with the article, which is about “autopilot” and not fsd:

      -conflating autopilot and dad numbers, they are not interoperable systems. They are separate code bases with different functionality.

      -the definition of “autopilot” seems to have been lifted from the aviation industry. The term is used to describe a system that controls the vector of a vehicle, is the speed and direction. That’s all. This does seem like a correct description for what the autopilot system does. While “FSD” does seem like it does not live up to expectations, not being a true level 5 driving system.

      Merriam Webster defines autopilot thusly:

      “A device for automatically steering ships, aircraft, and spacecraft also : the automatic control provided by such a device”