That's not true. The software is designed to work under human supervision, and the autonomous collision avoidance is a supplement to that supervision, not a substitute.
You could certainly argue that the software should be designed to, above all else, not hit stationary objects. But it is not actually designed that way.
What is your basis for the statement that it was not designed to work under human supervision? The documentation is quite explicit about needing human supervision, and I see nothing whatsoever indicating anything otherwise.
And you're still ignoring the part where I said it doesn't matter if it was designed intentionally this way or not, it shouldn't behave this way, regardless.
Really, you think that "X helps Y" is compatible with X being intended as the sole thing performing Y? If so, we clearly speak fundamentally different languages, despite the superficial similarities in spelling and such.
As for ignoring the other part, I explicitly acknowledged in my original reply that this would be a valid criticism, and it's not something I feel strongly enough about to argue.
You said it's designed to work without human supervision. Unless you're proposing some third entity besides the car and the human which would be responsible for collision avoidance, then what you said is that the car is fully responsible for it.
"It was not designed to work under human supervision...."
I don't know how else to understand that other than that it was designed to work without human supervision. If that's not what you meant, perhaps you could elaborate.
I meant what I said. Collision detection was not designed to work under human supervision, which means when it runs into something, it has failed its design.
> Collision detection was not designed to work under human supervision, which means when it runs into something, it has failed its design.
From your quote upthread:
> "Digital control of motors, brakes, and steering helps avoid collisions from the front and sides, and prevents the car from wandering off the road."
(Emphasis mine.)
Notice the shift in language from "helps avoid" to "prevents" when describing the two different aspects of the car's thrust and positioning systems. The different is significant and important. It's clear that the systems are a front and side collision assistance system, not a front and side collision prevention system.
Is your name Jared Overton? Or is that the name of your client? Because no impartial person would be so deliberately dense to argue against his own words.
I mean, my laptop is designed to detect a fall and park the hard drive automatically to avoid damage. But if I throw it off a cliff, it's probably still going to get damaged, and the Western Digital is going to laugh at my warranty claim. Because the software worked as designed, I just ignored the limitations and took the hardware outside of the design spec. Yes, the hard drive can protect against falls, up to a certain amount of G forces. Yes the Tesla can move itself around stationary objects, within the limitations of where the sensors can read.
I think you need to reevaluate your definition of "as designed". Because it's pretty clear that the Tesla was not designed to avoid this collision. It's not a software failure.
> The Tesla was designed to avoid this collision. Are you trying to say that Tesla would prefer their car hit stuff?
They don't prefer their car to hit stuff, but the car is not designed to never hit stuff either. By your logic, any car manufacturer that doesn't have some sort of collision prevention system prefer their cars to hit stuff, which is absurd.
That's not my logic, it's the logic of the comment I replied to. What I'm trying to say is they specifically designed and built a collision detection system with the goal of preventing the car from hitting things parked in front of it. That collision detection system did not detect the collision that took place in this case, and failed in its design goal, it's raison d'etre.
The car is designed to prevent collisions that can be detected by the sensors. This particular collision could not be detected by the sensors, therefore it isn't possible for the car to prevent it.
Are you basically saying a bulletproof vest has failed to achieve its design goal if it can't stop armour-piercing rounds? Or a fire extinguisher has failed to achieve its design goal if it can't put out a wild forest fire? There are always limitations to everything.
I'm saying Tesla engineers aren't looking at this and throwing their hands up in the air, claiming this was supposed to happen, and I'm saying a bulletproof vest has failed to achieve its design goal if you can't wear it when it's wet.
