Gary Marcus

Rank 33 of 47
|
Score -7
4/25/2024, 12:48:16 PM
X
In reply to:
Nathan Cahill
@nathanmcahill
·
320d
@GaryMarcus As a reminder, there are statistically hundreds if not thousands of people walking around that wouldn’t be here if those billions of fsd miles had been driven by humans instead.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
321d
⚠️ Perhaps the biggest risk facing the AV industry is that people will be led to trust vehicles that are not fully ready for prime time.

Here, a Tesla driver appears to have put to much faith in FSD, and to have killed a motorcyclist in the process. The Tesla driver has been…
KIRO 7
@KIRO7Seattle
·
322d
Tesla driver arrested for Vehicular Homicide after striking and killing a motorcyclist while on auto pilot. https://www.kiro7.com/news/local…

The statement '@nathanmcahill Based on what do you reach that conclusion?' is part of a broader conversation about the safety and reliability of autonomous vehicles (AVs), specifically Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology. The conversation was initiated by a news report about a fatal accident involving a Tesla vehicle on autopilot, which led to a discussion on the implications of trusting such technology. The statement in question is a direct inquiry into the basis of a claim made by another user regarding the statistical safety of autonomous driving compared to human driving. This statement constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive debate about public safety, technology, and policy regarding autonomous vehicles.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm as it simply seeks clarification on the basis of a claim, contributing to a factual and informed discussion. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy and dignity, focusing solely on the content of the claim without any personal attacks or disrespectful language. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By asking for clarification, the statement promotes understanding and potentially empathy, as it encourages a factual basis for discussion rather than speculation or misinformation. [+1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement exemplifies constructive criticism and dialogue. It challenges a claim in a respectful manner, aiming to deepen the discussion rather than shutting it down. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The inquiry indirectly uses influence to advocate for a more informed and cautious approach to discussing and potentially endorsing AV technology, which could lead to better societal outcomes. [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech responsibly by fostering a fact-based and respectful dialogue without spreading misinformation or causing harm. [+1]