this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
1023 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
73534 readers
2429 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm kinda torn on this - in principle, not this specific case. If your AI performs on paar with an average human and there is no known flaw at fault, I think you shouldn't be either.
And that is the point, Tesla's "AI" performs nowhere near human levels. Actual full self driving levels is on 5 scales where Tesla's are around level 2 out of those 5.
Tesla claimed they have full self driving for since about a decade or so, and it has been and continues to be a complwte lie. Musk claimed since long ago that he can drive a Tesla autonomously from LA to NY while in reality it has trouble leaving the first parking lot.
I'm unsure of and how much has changed there but since Elmo Musk spends more time lying about everything than actually improving his products, I would not hold my breath.
The original comment is perpetuating the lie. Intentional or not. They rely on fundamentally flawed soundbites that are precisely crafted for propaganda not to be informative or truthful at all.
Right off the bat they're saying "in principle" which presumes the baseline lie that "full self driving" is achieved. Then they strengthen their argument by reinforcing the idea that it's functionally equivalent to humans (i.e. generalized intelligence). Then the cap it off with "no known flaw". Pure lies.
Of course they've hedged by implying it's opinion but strongly suggest it's the most correct one anyways.
This demonstrates exactly how effective the propaganda is. They set up scenarios where nobody honest will refute their bullshit with certainty. Even though we know there is no existing system is on par with human drivers. Sure they can massage data to say under certain conditions an automated driving system performed similarly by some metric or whatever. But that's fundamentally not what they are telling laymen audience. They're lying in order to lead the average person to believe they can trust their car to drive them as if they are a passenger and another human is behind the wheel. This not true. Period. There is no existing system that does this. There will not be in the foreseeable future.
The fact of the meta is that technological discussion is more about this kind of propaganda than technology itself. If it weren't the case then more people would be hearing about the actual technology and it's real limitations. Not all the spin-doctoring. That leads to uncertainty and confusion. Which leads to preventable deaths.
I think the original commenter simply doesn't know how wrong he is