This is blatant whataboutism. Self-driving car technology is inherently newsworthy. Musk just hates scrutiny.
-
-
-
It isn't whataboutism when one points out a complete lack of context in reporting.
-
Did you read the Washington Post article that Musk is huffing about? It didn't make any irresponsible claims. It just reported on a self-driving car crash and noted two similar crashes under investigation. Musk doth protest too much.
-
One sided reporting on the issue is swinging public opinion away from the ground truth on the matter, ie; AI driven cares are safer. If this stalls adoption by even a few years we're talking millions of lives needlessly lost on roads. Imho
@elonmusk can't protest enough. -
If they're really as good as Musk says they are, he should welcome investigation and coverage of the inevitable wrinkles and accidents that come with developing a new technology.
-
This is nonsense, if you sensationally reported every serious bad reaction of a new vaccine or medical treatment public would be made irrationally afraid of it w/o statistical context. Same for sensational plane accident coverage, sell fear and sensationalism.
-
If a plane falls out of the sky, it's newsworthy. You don't need to cover all the planes that don't fall out of the sky for "balance."
-
Nonsensical comparison. Equivalent would be 100s of planes fall out of the sky everyday but national media only sensationally reports when a electric plane falls out of the sky and obfuscates relative statiscal risk.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Why is he right, Professor Pinker? The article is about a new technology and people are interested in knowing what will be with it. We already know a lot about regular car crashes - they are not "news" in the same sense.
-
He's right because journalists don't put the news in perspective. New technologies are compared to what? Aren't many accidents happening because of bad drivers? Or are we comparing to the utopian 0 accidents ever?
-
He’s also wrong because he has oversold the abilities of his “self-driving” system to boost stock price and image and is furious that he’s being held to account for that recklessness.
-
Has he ever said autopilot is infallible? What do you mean by oversold?
-
Exhibit A, your Worship.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXeqFrwfIsA&feature=youtu.be&t=15m36s …
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
It's the old "Dog Bites Man" is not news, but "Man Bites Dog" is. The unusual sells papers. That said, people *should* be more aware of auto death statistics and the huge potential for lives to be saved by self-driving cars.
-
The exceptionalism nature of news combined with publish what sells more ads/creates more 'engagements' because of profit pressures... "Planes on Time at the Airport" vs "Nightmare 8hr delay on Tarmac-- no water, no AC, no WC"
-
Roughly speaking, your chances of surviving a car trip today is 99%. Your chances of surviving a flight is 99.99%, or about 100 times safer, In the future, when car fatalities are as unusual as aircraft fatalities, the media will report every single car crash.
-
I take more than 100x more trips in a car than a plane. Risk per trip is misleading.
-
Fair point. If your risk per individual trip was 99% and you drive 300 times in a year, that would suggest (.99^300) only a 5% chance of surviving the year. :) That was from yearly stats, so perhaps better to say you have a 99% chance of surviving a year's worth of driving.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.