Sure Bob is instigating the harassment, then X.com is actually doing the harassment. Or at least, that's the case plaintiff's attorneys are surely going to be arguing.

if grok never existed and X instead ran a black-box-implementation "press button receive CP" webapp, X would be legally culpable and liable each time a user pressed the button, for production plus distribution

the same is true if the webapp has a blank "type what you want I'll make it for you" field and the user types "CP" and the webapp makes it.

> robotaxi is the name of the tesla unsupervised driving program

“robotaxi” is a generic term for (when the term was coined, hypothetical) self-driving taxicabs, that predates Tesla existing. “Tesla Robotaxi” is the brand-name of a (slightly more than merely hypothetical, today) Tesla service (for which a trademark was denied by the US PTO because of genericness). Tesla Robotaxi, where it operates, provides robotaxis, but most robotaxis operating today are not provided by Tesla Robotaxi.

It is not ethical to wait for legal solutions and in the meantime just producing fake child pornography with your AI solution.

Legal things are amoral, amoral things are legal. We have a duty to live morally, legal is only words in books.

If you have to wait for the government to tell you to stop producing CP before you stop, you are morally bankrupt.

It's only an ethics and business problem if the produced images are purely synthetic and in most jurisdictions even that is questionable. Grok produced child pornography of real children which is a legal problem.

pedantically correct, but there is a good argument that if you host an AI tool that can easially be made to make child porn that no longer applies. a couple years ago when AI was new you could argue that you never thought anyone would use your tool to create child porn. However today it is clear some people are doing that and you need to prevent that.

Note that I'm not asking for perfection. However if someone does manage to create child porn (or any of a number of currently unspecified things - the list is likely to grow over the next few years), you need to show that you have a lot of protections in place and they did something hard to bypass them.

I reject the premise of your comment. If Tesla wants to convince people that Robotaxi is safe, it's on them to publish an analysis with comparative data and stop redacting the crash details that Waymo freely provides. Until they do, it's reasonable to follow the source article's simple math and unreasonable to declare that there's no way to be sure because there might be some unknown factor it's not accounting for.

I have enjoyed Karpathy's educational materials over the years, but somehow missed that he was involved with Tesla to this degree. This was a very insightful comment from 9 years ago on the topic:

> What this really reflects is that Tesla has painted itself into a corner. They've shipped vehicles with a weak sensor suite that's claimed to be sufficient to support self-driving, leaving the software for later. Tesla, unlike everybody else who's serious, doesn't have a LIDAR.

> Now, it's "later", their software demos are about where Google was in 2010, and Tesla has a big problem. This is a really hard problem to do with cameras alone. Deep learning is useful, but it's not magic, and it's not strong AI. No wonder their head of automatic driving quit. Karpathy may bail in a few months, once he realizes he's joined a death march.

> ...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14600924

Karpathy left in 2022. Turns out that the commenter, Animats, is John Nagle!

Digital cameras are much worse than the human eye, especially when it comes to dynamic range, but I don't think that's all that widely known actually. There are also better and worse digital cameras, and the ones on a Waymo are very good, and the ones on a Tesla aren't that great, and that makes a huge difference.

Beyond even the cameras themselves, humans can move their head around, use sun visors, put on sunglasses, etc to deal with driving into the sun, but AVs don't have these capabilities yet.

Using only cameras is a business decision, not tech decision: will camera + NN be good enough before LIDAR+Radar+RGB+NN can scale up.

For me it looks like they will reach parity at about the same time, so camera only is not totally stupid. What's stupid is forcing robotaxi on the road before the technology is ready.

Then stop deploying camera only systems until that time comes.

Waymo could be working on camera only. I don’t know. But it’s not controlling the car. And until such a time they can prove with their data that it is just as safe, that seems like a very smart decision.

Tesla is not taking such a cautious approach. And they’re doing it on public roads. That’s the problem.

Lidar and radar will also get better and having all possible sensors will always out perform camera only.

> So there will be a point when camera based systems without lidars will get better than human drivers.

No reason to assume that. A toddler that is increasing in walk speed every month will never be able to outrun a cheetah.