I repeat: I cannot falsify your contention. We will both go to our graves "not knowing" whether or not the driver is "really" the magic that makes the car drive itself. But only one of us is actually right.
Of course it's falsifible. I don't own a Tesla, and I wouldn't trust it even if I did, but I could check for myself by setting it to self-drive and then not paying any attention whatsoever. If I get in an accident, I was right.
More realistically, if Tesla believed their car is safe without human intervention, they could, you know, put them out on the streets without drivers, like Waymo did. Or at least tell their customers that it's actually safe to not pay full attention and that Tesla would accept liability if accidents happen, like Mercedes did. Or something in between. Since they are not doing any of these things, I think your opinion that is just obviously wrong.
This is disingenuous. And the reason is you clearly refuse to take testimony from those of us who do this every day. I'll tell you right now that it's been well over a year since I had any kind of safety-related disengagement. So, you'll change your mind?
Of course not. You're going to say that that's not enough data, and then go and cherry pick a single accident or testimony to the contrary to invalidate the data that you just said was a valid test.
Comments
I repeat: I cannot falsify your contention. We will both go to our graves "not knowing" whether or not the driver is "really" the magic that makes the car drive itself. But only one of us is actually right.
Of course it's falsifible. I don't own a Tesla, and I wouldn't trust it even if I did, but I could check for myself by setting it to self-drive and then not paying any attention whatsoever. If I get in an accident, I was right.
More realistically, if Tesla believed their car is safe without human intervention, they could, you know, put them out on the streets without drivers, like Waymo did. Or at least tell their customers that it's actually safe to not pay full attention and that Tesla would accept liability if accidents happen, like Mercedes did. Or something in between. Since they are not doing any of these things, I think your opinion that is just obviously wrong.
This is disingenuous. And the reason is you clearly refuse to take testimony from those of us who do this every day. I'll tell you right now that it's been well over a year since I had any kind of safety-related disengagement. So, you'll change your mind?
Of course not. You're going to say that that's not enough data, and then go and cherry pick a single accident or testimony to the contrary to invalidate the data that you just said was a valid test.
Like I said, non-falsifiable.