Tesla knew Autopilot caused death, but didn't fix it

Boom.

It remains to be seen what hardware is required for autonomous driving as no company has a fully functioning system, so there is no baseline to compare to. Cruise (the "4k monitor" in your anaology) just had to cut their fleet of geofenced vehicles after back to back crashes involving emergency vehicles along with blocking traffic and attempting to run over things like fire hoses.

A times B times C equals X… I am jacks something something something

Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

Woman on Plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?

Narrator: You wouldn't believe.

Woman on Plane: Which car company do you work for?

Narrator: A major one.

”One of the major ones”

https://www.wardsauto.com/blog/my-somewhat-begrudging-apology-ford-pinto

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-02-10-mn-1335-story.html

Two examples of the media creating a frenzy that wound up being proven completely false later.

In OP's case, both of these drivers failed to see a semi crossing the road right in front of them even though they were sitting in the driver's seat with their hands on the wheel. This technology certainly needs improvement, but this is like blaming every auto manufacturer when someone crashes their car while texting on their phone.

Here's how to do self driving cars in a reliable way. First, instead of cameras that try to use road markings designed for human eyes, use specially designed roads with guide rails on them to ensure it follows a safe path. Second, for added convenience, these roads could also power the cars so you don't need to stop to charge. Then we could even connect those cars together to increase efficiency. To mitigate the cost, no individual has to own them, they can stop at fixed points to pick up and drop off passengers, charging an affordable rate for each trip, or monthly/annual passes for frequent users. Maybe we could call them trains.

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 have nearly 20k miles on tesla's FSD platform, it works amazingly well for something thats "not real". There are countless youtube channels out there where people will mount a gopro in their car and go for a drive. Some of them like AIDRIVR and Whole Mars Catalog pretty much never take over control of the car without any drama. Especially in the past ~6 months or so of development it has been amazing.

At the very least, they would prioritize the driver, because the driver is likely to buy another Tesla in the future if they do.

Meanwhile hundreds of people are killed in auto accidents every single day in the US. Even if a self driving car is 1000x safer than a human driver there will still be accidents as long as other humans are also sharing the same road.

I think the whole premise is flawed because the car would have had to have had numerous failures before ever reaching a point where it would need to make this decision. This applies to humans as we have free will. A computer does not.

Tesla Autopilot has nothing to do with AI. It is a lane keep assist system with cruise control.

Exactly. Until the next maybe 2 decades, it should only be called driver assist.

That is precisely why autopilot is called a driver assist system. Just like every other manufacturer's LKAS.

Because the tech has inarguably failed. It's all about the lawyers and how long they can extend Tesla's irresponsibility.

Tesla is producing advertisement videos (already in 2016) that said "our cars drive themselves, you don't need a driver". What you said is worthless when Tesla itself is marketing their cars like that.

They should really have called it something else than autopilot/FSD. It's a driver assist and everyone knows this but it's so easy to dunk on them when it fails because of the name though I'm 100% sure the system tells you to keep your eyes on the road and hands on the steering wheel when you engage it. If you crash a "self driving" car it's the fault of the driver - not the vehicle.

I agree with you. This is about user error. Unfortunately, people seemed to believe their cars could literally drive themselves.

Tesla is producing advertisement videos that say 'our cars drive themselves, you don't need a driver'.

It always has been a glorified adaptive cruise with lanekeeping

Correct.

and has always been advertised as such.

Wrong.

"A bit misleading" is, I think, a bit of a misleading way to describe their marketing. It's literally called Autopilot, and their marketing material has very aggressively pitched it as a 'full self driving' feature since the beginning, even without mentioning Musk's own constant and ridiculous hyperbole when advertising it. It's software that should never have been tested outside of vehicles run by company employees under controlled conditions, but Tesla chose to push it to the public as a paid feature and significantly downplay the fact that it is a poorly tested, unreliable beta, specifically to profit from the data generated by its widespread use, not to mention the price they charge for it as if it were a normal, ready to use consumer feature. Everything about their deployment of the system has been reckless, careless, and actively disdainful of their customers' safety.

Back on 2016 Tesla released a video that says "our cars drive themselves, you don't the driver".