I read the article and watched the video. The person who took out the ad is a competitor and it appears to me that he's looking for publicity for his own software. His software cannot be hacked and is in use in American military systems like the B1A bomber and F35 jet. His argument is FSD can be hacked.
He also claims that FSD is unsafe on the roads which seems to be somewhat supported by others. Frankly, from the FSD videos I saw, it's not up to driving safely on its own. California is reviewing the license granted to Tesla because of safety issues and Consumer Reports will be testing it on their own soon.
David Lee seems to like Tesla. So his anger at the ad seemed biased. His video didn't make sense in some areas. The NY Times where the ad was placed does not require open discourse from the ad placer or to reveal so called conflicts of interest. It's known that the ad placer's company provides software for BMW electric cars and other ICE cars across the industry as well as the aforementioned US military. Also, the Times cannot editorialize ads. It's not their business and they don't get involved usually. This is all about two big guys competing with each other.
I pointed out more than once that the current FSD is not a fully functioning software,
it is a Beta testing version.
When you drive a car using FSD Beta, you have access to the steering wheel, mirrors, screen display and pedals, and you can take over at anytime.
Compare it to the current practice of parents in USA teaching their offsprings how to drive a car. The young beta driver is a ticking time bomb compared to the Tesla FSD. If the kid makes a mistake, the parent could grab a wheel, but he can't press the brake or gas pedal to escape from a precarious situation. That practice should be banned before criticizing autonomous software. Most other developed countries don't allow teaching someone to drive without a second set of pedals and teaching certificate. The FSD in its current version has a better track record than the teenage driving learners.
Why do we allow teenagers driving with adult supervision in technically inadequate vehicles? The reason why we allow teenagers to drive with learners permit is that they need to learn how to drive. Similarly, FSD needs to be driven and collect more miles in order to learn how to drive better.
The stats comparing the driving accidents with or without FSD are quite impressive. In Q4 2021, Tesla has recorded one crash per 4.31 million miles driven using Autopilot (or FSD). Compare it with NHTSA data which shows one automotive crash per 484,000 miles driven, so even FSD Beta in its current form is about 9 times less deadly than an average drive without FSD. In addition, the FSD accident stats are improving every quarter. In other words, NHTSA and the Green Hill Software dude criticizing Tesla's FSD are in effect advocating killings by drivers without FSD or Autopilot.
In 2019, almost 2,400 teens in the United States aged 13–19 were killed1,2 and about 258,000 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor vehicle crashes.1 That means that every day, about seven teens died due to motor vehicle crashes, and hundreds more were injured. In addition, motor vehicle crash deaths among teens 15–19 years of age resulted in about $4.8 billion in medical and work loss costs for crashes that occurred in 2018.
The risk of motor vehicle crashes is higher among teens aged 16–19 than among any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, teen drivers in this age group are nearly three times as likely as drivers aged 20 or older to be in a fatal crash.
https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/teen_drivers/teendrivers_factsheet.html
