Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
12/14/2024, 1:15:50 AM
X
In reply to:
Jeff Graw
@JeffGraw
·
421d
@GaryMarcus Oh, you're back. Had a feeling.

So, consider that the inverse, if it fails one a route one time in 100, also doesn't mean that FSD can't you drive you from a residential origin in one city to a residential destination in another.

From what we've seen of FSD 13, it will probably…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
421d
Oh come on, this is a total fallacy.

Driving a given route once successfully does not entail being able to drive that same route reliably. (And doing it in clear weather in California doesn’t mean you can do it under different conditions, other pairs of cities etc.)
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
·
422d
Your Tesla can now drive you from your house in one complex city to another house in a different complex city

The statement addresses the safety concerns of autonomous driving technology, emphasizing the potential dangers of over-reliance on driver-assist systems. It highlights the need for either full attention or genuine autonomy, suggesting that anything in between could lead to complacency and increased risk.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aligns with the principle of doing no harm by highlighting potential safety risks associated with autonomous driving technology. [+2]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding and awareness of the limitations and dangers of current driver-assist systems, encouraging a cautious approach. [+2]
  3. 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 engages in constructive dialogue by addressing a specific concern without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]