Comment by enragedcacti

3 years ago

I think the opening is what separates this from "not technically lying". By leading the video with "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons" when they know for a fact that the vehicle had previously crashed on that exact route with that exact software they have in my mind elevated it to an outright lie.

11 comments

enragedcacti

jefftk 3 years ago

I interpret the opening claim as "if it were legal for us to film this without a driver we would have", and I think that's probably true. But while that's reflective of a pretty worrying safety attitude for a car company it's not lying.

sidibe 3 years ago
They would not tried that without a driver. I think even Elon has that level of restraint and sense
- jefftk 3 years ago
  
  I wonder if we're disagreeing on what they thought the odds of an embarrassing incident were or whether those odds would have been acceptable to them?
  The video is 3:44, and I think doesn't have any bits cut out. I'm guessing that after running the route many times for practice and giving it extra data they could have gotten down to about odds of somewhere around 1:10k. And I think they would have accepted those odds.
  (I would definitely not accept those odds, and would not want to ride in or near a car made by people who would. I'm glad that the law prevented them from doing runs without a safety driver at that stage. And I don't think they're anywhere near ready to do that today either.)
  
  4 replies →
ClumsyPilot 3 years ago

> I interpret the opening claim as "if it were legal for us to film this without a driver we would have"..it's not lying.
I interpret lying as reclining your body in a horizontal position.

stefan_ 3 years ago

Not just crashed, but also:

    Q. And isn't it true that during the various
       attempts to generate the video, there were instances
       in which the person sitting in the seat had to intervene?
    A. Yes.

wilg 3 years ago

The charitable interpretation is "The person in the driver's seat is not interacting with the car in any way in this video".

enragedcacti 3 years ago

I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation considering the next line is: "He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself"
Why say the exact same thing twice? I think its clear Tesla wanted to make a stronger claim than "he happened to not do anything this particular time"