Has this (pseudonymous) person done a proper study workup? This is a proposal to put a child into a potentially life-threatening situation. I hope they’ve written up (and had reviewed) the rationale for why this can’t be simulated first. And I hope they’ve gotten the snapshot of the Tesla software used, for reference.
And for the person who volunteered their own child, I wonder if they should be talking to CPS right now.
The person who made the Twitter post mentioned the Bay Area. If they are serious, try going to a place like the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford, talking to the people there, and doing a study.
Seems easiest solution is for those wanting to test this just use themselves. After all, a squatting or sitting adult Is same height as a child, it would be the perfect substitute!
> Don’t force a kid to walk in front of your 4,000-pound metal box traveling at god knows what speed
Some consolation, according to the tweet chain, is that it'll be at 5MPH and the child wouldn't be in front of the car (just on the sidewalk approaching the road). Still not sure the need to put an actual child at any risk when the car stopping for a dummy would prove the same point if not stronger.
There is something seriously wrong with people who have critical thinking skills who are unable to recognize the fabricated bullshit being written to discredit anything related to Elon.
> I’ll run over as many kids as I want and you can’t stop me!!
I'm actually not expecting the Tesla to run over the child (because either it will stop, or the driver will intervene and slam on the brakes or avoid the child). But it also gives me 100% confidence that this person is the exact wrong person to perform any scientific test of the system to even remotely validate its safety.
Does a proximity to Elon Musk make people forget that optics are a thing? Yeah this is a dumb joke, making a dumb joke about running over children still makes you look like an asshole.
Musk has that quality that Steve Jobs had - the so-called RDF or "Reality Distortion Field". Proximity to Musk seems to scramble a lot of people's minds and thought processes.
It kind of worked for those two because they made good stuff - iPhone, cars, rockets etc. You can get away with saying this will be great if you deliver occasionally.
Nothing. This is idiotic attention seeking. Software engineers know that you don't set up a demo and proclaim that a previously demonstrated edge case isn't real because it "works for me". You just fix the issue. That's it.
So I've mentioned this before -- traditionally, journalism involves reaching out to the person you're writing about for comment before posting it. I wish they'd mark off as "opinion" pieces like this that clearly don't follow those methods.
Even if the AI could tell the difference between a cardboard cutout and a human, I still wouldn't want my car to run over a cardboard cutout, or a box, or anything else on the road. I don't trust it because I know first-hand that Tesla FSD consistently runs over both large pieces of debris and large potholes in the roadway that every other vehicle on the road avoids. So yeah, I don't trust the car is smart enough to avoid hitting anything other than another vehicle or bicyclist. I don't rely on it at all. It was a waste of $10,000. After two years' experience with FSD, I absolutely would not buy FSD again if I were buying another Tesla right now. But I still don't believe it's something for lawmakers to get involved in.
Personally I wouldn't be relying on a car not to hit anything at all, at least, not in this decade. To me, it seems like a last chance dice roll, to lean on the scales a bit and maybe help in a case where I mess up.
That is the difference between an accident and murder.
If you try your best to adhere to all best practices, and still a bad thing happens, that is an entirely 100% different thing from the bad thing that happens when you voluntarily, deliberately, knowingly, do something wrong or unnecessary, and then a bad thing happens.
That's not what I was talking about. I was responding to the person who implied that self-driving cars need to be completely error-free, which is an unattainable standard, and far beyond what human drivers are capable of. There will still be traffic accidents with self-driving cars, but hopefully far fewer. Holding them to an unrealistic standard of 0 errors would needlessly kill thousands of people.
It's pretty clear that nobody was ever going to put a kid in front of their Tesla, and The Verge and everyone here is being deliberately obtuse to indulge their Tesla/Musk hate.
There are so many deer around california/oregon this time of year driving around outside of the city for a bit wouldn't take too long to find one. Not the same though of course
I mean, it's not even that hard to put together a child-size dummy of ballistic gel (a la Mythbusters). Doesn't have to be a work of art, and it should be indistinguishable from the real thing (in terms of radar signature, etc).
Why not just have someone put one on a low cart and drag it along the road in front of your speeding Tesla, and beta-test it that way? Isn't Tesla doing that?
62 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 125 ms ] threadFine, then let’s treat it like a serious request. Apparently someone volunteered a child (https://twitter.com/wholemarsblog/status/1557206098876194816, presumably their own child).
Has this (pseudonymous) person done a proper study workup? This is a proposal to put a child into a potentially life-threatening situation. I hope they’ve written up (and had reviewed) the rationale for why this can’t be simulated first. And I hope they’ve gotten the snapshot of the Tesla software used, for reference.
And for the person who volunteered their own child, I wonder if they should be talking to CPS right now.
The person who made the Twitter post mentioned the Bay Area. If they are serious, try going to a place like the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford, talking to the people there, and doing a study.
See also this stuff by Aaron Greenspan. https://twitter.com/PlainSite/status/1558129429733261312?t=c...
Note: Aaron is somewhat nutty himself, kinda obsessed about this stuff.
And the fan who made the request should get his driving license yanked indefinitely.
He just proved without a doubt that his character is unfit to let him drive a potentially deadly vehicle on public roads.
Controversy Erupts over Video of FSD Tesla Striking Child Mannequin (thedrive.com)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32444601
Some consolation, according to the tweet chain, is that it'll be at 5MPH and the child wouldn't be in front of the car (just on the sidewalk approaching the road). Still not sure the need to put an actual child at any risk when the car stopping for a dummy would prove the same point if not stronger.
A reply won't broadcast.
I'm actually not expecting the Tesla to run over the child (because either it will stop, or the driver will intervene and slam on the brakes or avoid the child). But it also gives me 100% confidence that this person is the exact wrong person to perform any scientific test of the system to even remotely validate its safety.
What puzzles me is that people actually bought into the marketing hype. Its a prototype quality car running alpha software…
If you try your best to adhere to all best practices, and still a bad thing happens, that is an entirely 100% different thing from the bad thing that happens when you voluntarily, deliberately, knowingly, do something wrong or unnecessary, and then a bad thing happens.
We're talking about whoever wants to stick a kid in front of a car, not the car. Holy cow.
It's pretty clear that nobody was ever going to put a kid in front of their Tesla, and The Verge and everyone here is being deliberately obtuse to indulge their Tesla/Musk hate.
Why not just have someone put one on a low cart and drag it along the road in front of your speeding Tesla, and beta-test it that way? Isn't Tesla doing that?