The use of the word "helps" makes it pretty clear that it's not intended to be the only thing working to avoid collisions.

No it doesn't.

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.

I didn't say "x being intended as the sole thing performing Y", I said, "It's designed to avoid collisions from the front and sides.", which it was.

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.

Tesla cars are not designed to run into things.

> 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.

You see the distinction?

I see the distinction you're trying to make, but it's not referencing the design.

Are you suggesting collision detection is not designed to prevent collisions?

> Are you suggesting collision detection is not designed to prevent collisions?

Lol. Okay, dude.

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.

Relax, I'm just trying to point out that Tesla did not intend to build a car that would run into stationary objects.

They also did not build their car to never run into objects. These 2 are not mutually exclusive.

For example, a kitchen knife is not designed to kill people, but it also wasn't designed to prevent itself from being used to kill people.