837
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Mindlight@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Does Teslas still have a disclaimer that the self-driving features aren't self-driving and that if the driver is using the self driving features and there is an accident Tesla can't be held liable?

[-] Jilanico@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago
[-] Mindlight@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

So it doesn't matter whatever you're using Teslas or a 3rd party software since you, as the driver, are responsible for the outcome.

[-] Jilanico@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

If it was a matter of installing software on a laptop or phone, I'd agree with you, but installing software on a vehicle that can run over people is another matter, disclaimer or not.

Just like some cars are street legal and some cars are not, some software should be street legal and some software not. If the 3rd party software has been cleared by regulators for your Tesla, I'd be fine with it.

[-] Mindlight@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

So you're claiming the software in Teslas have been tested and approved by the authorities?

[-] Jilanico@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

You didn't read the article I linked? Seems they do it after the fact, which is sus imo, but authorities are exerting some level of oversight.

[-] Mindlight@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I did read it. They opened an investigation like 5 years after The Model S was released and people have died. Now, 6 years after that, something actually happens. 6 years of more accidents.

The same could be done with 3rd party software so there's no difference and it's not the same as the car system being regularly inspected.

[-] Jilanico@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I haven't followed it closely to know all the deets, but some action being taken is better than none. I'm not out here defending Tesla or current government policies. I do believe that if I have to pass a driving test to operate a vehicle, then whatever self-driving software is installed should do the same.

If you're trying to convince me that anyone should be able to take any random self driving software they found on the Internet, install it, and let it go wild on public streets, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

[-] Mindlight@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It seems you are trying to prove that "random software" is unsafe compared to Tesla's when you actually have no idea how safe Tesla's is.

There are multiple companies and universities developing software for self driving cars.

What if the "random software" was developed and maintained by Volvo, would you still call it "random software"? Would you still claim that Tesla's software is more safe to use?

[-] Jilanico@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Nope, if you look at a previous comment of mine in this thread, you'd see I'm fine with 3rd party software as long as it's been approved by regulators. Same goes for Tesla's software - if it hasn't been approved by regulators prior to deployment on the streets, I'm against it.

[-] Mindlight@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

So you're not fine with Tesla's even?

Since there is no such testing you're talking about.

this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
837 points (99.2% liked)

News

23360 readers
1893 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS