Training is not going to help. it's just not in human nature to pay attention when there's nothing to do most of the time, and it must be assumed that the driver will require at least a couple of seconds warning, and probably more, before being able to take control. It is highly irresponsible of auto manufacturers to field systems that cannot reliably give that warning, even though it is technically the driver's responsibility to pay attention. Tesla's habit of calling it beta software is a cynical attempt to avoid responsibility, which may come back to haunt them, as it shows they know the system is not ready.

I am beginning to see a case here for active blocking that could be turned off or be tuned/smart enough to permit emergency-response signals.

You are just repeating one of Herodotus' tweets.

Point 1 is not relevant, because all these systems must be judged on how well they respond to situations without regard to cause: as you say, shit happens. Point 2 might be relevant if this wasn't entirely predictable behavior.

The real issue is that beta software with real safety concerns is being put into the hands of people who predictably (statistically speaking) can not or will not treat it as such - that alone is a major WTF. The only thing Tesla can justifiably complain about is that this is being reported as a Tesla-only issue, when the other manufacturers are being equally irresponsible (if not worse - my understanding is that Tesla's system is better than most, if not all.)

It is not being overlooked; it is irrelevant. the issue is whether people in general are capable of operating these systems safely, given their limitations (both the people and the technology.) The case has not been adequately made so far, IMHO. Tesla's insistence that this is beta software is both an acknowledgement that this is so and an attempt to get around the fact (irresponsibly so, IMHO.)

I look forward to autonomous cars, but I am opposed to the practice of pretending that the state of the art is more advanced than it is.

No, because you have authorized its use.

The "that's not the true meaning of the word" argument seems particularly popular in forums like /., where technically-minded people hang out, and in most cases (such as here), it is beside the point.

What it means is beside the point - what matters is how it is (mis)understood by Tesla drivers, and whether that affects how they use the feature. Personally, I think some (many?) people are going to put too much trust in the feature, regardless of what you call it.

I can't imagine anyone would be so foolish. Everyone knows sarcasm is the apotheosis of intelligence.

One purpose of an explanation is to be a better alternative to an assumption. If you had written something like that in your original post (assuming you're the same AC), then you would have had something beginning to look like an explanation.
 

It is interesting that this currently rates as '4, informative', given that it does not explain a single fatality. I am curious as to how anyone could think this is an explanation, as that might explain a lot about the current state of rational thought.

Calling consciousness 'just' a feedback loop is just a way of avoiding saying 'I don't understand what it is.'

Information on what Wesson is calculating seems hard to come by, but this may be it:
https://www.google.ch/patents/...

That is a very good point in your second paragraph - the history of science and its methods (and also of philosophy) was not perceived by its participants in the way the story is now told, and the claims being made in this thread about the invention of the scientific method are a simplistic and self-serving reading of that history. I also take your point that one can argue that most of the 'fathers' of the scientific method were also practitioners, but making a big deal over what you call them is part of PopeRatzo et. als' fallacious argument. The interesting part of the history is what the players thought and did, not what labels we give them (some people might think I am joining in the same fallacy, but I am only participating in this thread to offer some counter-arguments.)