The interesting thing is the data set of watching humans drive and using models to drive for the same place. This only works if the "place" is not notably different from the model, say a semi has hit the overhead and its now hanging into the roadway, can the car distinguish between a sign hanging sideways and one that is attached normally?
Severe storms and down power lines is another interesting question. Does autopilot recognize the environment has been grossly modified and refuse to drive? Earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, all can grossly change the environment at a particular geocoded location.
What if a Tesla owner's club decides to use a piece of highway 58 out in Nevada as a race strip? Does autopilot assume that when you hit this point you are supposed to stomp the accelerator and go as fast as you can? (ok that is a stretch)
It's the data without the knowledge. Something machine learning is bad at (hence turning chat bots into vitriol spewing fascists). VERY interesting times.
Humans are not perfect in those situations either, and cause plenty of fatal crashes.
Remember, autopilot doesn't have to be anywhere near perfect. It only has to be better than humans are now.
I used to think about it the way you do, but lately I think if they can make the numbers work out, then there will be some insurance companies willing to step in and turn risk of lawsuits into a manageable cost of doing business.
Or like x-ray machines?
Or like any other machinery that is automated and kills the odd person here and there?
These cases show us it doesn't need to be perfect at all.
As do other car accidents.
As with any beta testing of software, high-fidelity diagnostic data is a must, especially in these circumstance as you have no other way of simulating the various scenarios people find themselves in when driving.
In no way is it acceptable to give customers "experimental" software, overhype it, and disclaim responsibility when it inevitably fails.
I'll trade my location privacy for awesome car capabilities.
But now with Tesla user-tracking, people seem to be actively psyched at being tracked by Tesla.
In this case, people mostly agree that R&D in self-driving cars is important, and can clearly see how this data helps with that. Whereas identifying traffic in Google Maps/Apple Maps feels less important, and the connection between location tracking and detecting traffic takes a little more work to understand.
There's someone making the same consent argument (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6873947 ) and lots of people expressing ambivalence and more about sharing the data with Google.
As far as how people are responding to Tesla doing it, you did reply to a comment questioning their practices without evening being exposed to them.
Assuming of course that new Starbucks don't start showing up on routes preferred by Tesla drivers.
Privacy erodes naturally. It is inventible. The benefits outweigh the costs almost always. The need of the many outweighs the needs of the few.
The future is one in which humans are recognized, at least by the machines, as being more like a single organism than a group of individuals.
Data collection is all about machines being able to treat you as an individual.
Perhaps there is a way to opt out of this - but also, if you opt out, do Tesla disable features of the car?
(emphasis mine)
This has interesting privacy implications. I am not a Tesla owner, but I imagine that by enabling Autopilot you consent to providing Tesla with diagnostic, error, and sensor data. But what about those who have not enabled this feature? Their Tesla will automatically phone home with data regarding their location and surroundings regardless of whether or not they have consented to this?