IEEE anti-Tesla report mysteriously disappears from Duke Pratt School of Engineering website
I saw a weird comment on Reddit about my article on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Report on Tesla’s Autopilot System. Someone shared the article on Reddit and u / norman_rogerson mentioned that the link to the full report was broken. Very, very strange. I have reviewed this report with my own eyes and have linked it directly. So I returned to my article and clicked on the link, hoping to find it. It did lead to something new, however. The report is no longer available on the Duke Pratt School of Engineering website.
I went back to the author’s tweet to see if it was still available. The link was still there, but it now redirected to the web page on Robotic Arm — Manual Interface. However, the Wayback Machine has an archive of the report for those who want to read it. Click here for it.
When I spoke about it with a few Tesla friends on Twitter, one of them, Jessica Meckmann, had the ingenuity to capture the URL of the link and shared the screenshot with me. Note that the web address always contains “IEEE Tesla”.
It appears that the Duke Pratt School of Engineering may have pulled this report from the IEEE after some backlash, possibly because one of the authors works for a company specializing in radar and lidar technology that is a competitor. of Tesla – and especially since Tesla does not. use this kind of technology (radar and lidar) for autonomous driving.
I find this quite interesting and wonder if any outlets that may have used the report or if anyone citing the report will notice that it is no longer available on the website without the help of the archive site. Wayback Machine. I’m also wondering if Duke University will issue a public retraction, and I’m curious how the IEEE will react as well.
There is more, however.
It was a peer-reviewed report. Elango Vanangamudi noted that on the Wayback Machine link, there was another version on August 21 that showed the authors had deleted the line “In view of the recent deaths of two people in a Tesla Model 3 when the car was would be overwritten because no one was in the driver’s seat.… ”He noted that there was only one change made before publication. However, that is not the case with this anti-Tesla report IEEE, which always included the false or misleading line.
interesting! They have a version of the August 21 document on their website https://t.co/TiZn8IS4cu – they have deleted the line “Considering the recent deaths of two people in a Tesla Model 3 when the car allegedly crashed because that no one was in the driver’s seat… “quoting the NYTimes story! 😀
– Elango Vanangamudi (@velango) August 22, 2021
Jessica confirmed this in the file comparison. The screenshots below are from her. The first is the recent update dated August 22. The second is the original. Take note of the texts in the red box. I find it incredibly strange that the authors returned and edited the published peer-reviewed report after being called out for bias on Twitter.
There is more fish in the report. I didn’t go into these details in the other article because I wanted to politely call out the bias. I didn’t expect the report to be removed, but thanks to the Internet Archive and Wayback Machine, these reports are still available – the original and modified versions.
Many people in the Tesla community said they were blocked by the author when asked about the report. I remember this tweet she made about people trolling her, which is why in this previous post I wanted to stress that this was not a call to harass or troll her. However, her actions, her biased stance against Tesla, and the report that was withdrawn all imply that she doesn’t care about accuracy at all – at least for me. And if she did, she wouldn’t continue CNN go on Tesla.
– Michael Smerconish (@smerconish) August 21, 2021
She joined host Michael Smerconish, who told her up front that he owns Tesla:
“I drive a Tesla and love it, and I use the feature we’re discussing now, and my own take is that one of those crashes is largely the result of human factors.
“When I read about these different accidents I see people making mistakes like they do with or without the so-called autopilot feature like the guy who dropped the phone then bends down to pick up the phone and bad things follow. Or the driver who is drunk shouldn’t have been drunk. What’s your reaction ? “
The author replied:
“Well, it’s true that Tesla makes it clear in the manuals that you must always be in control and despite the public advertising of fully autonomous driving or autopilot that you, the human, are in control. So there is no doubt that Tesla, at least from a legal point of view, understands that the driver is supposed to be in control.
“But the problem is humans, again because they get bored easily and see the car is pretty good and we’ve seen it for over 20 years in human factors research that if automation or autonomy is good enough, even if it is deeply flawed, people will continue to view automation as a legitimate authority, and then start to indulge in complacency, distraction, and indeed the car lulls people into a false sense of security.
“I think that’s the problem, is that in just half a second a lot of really bad things can happen in your car.”
She also suggested that Tesla drop the Autopilot name.
“I actually think words matter. We shouldn’t be using words like Autopilot and Full-Self Driving because it tells people that the car is performing better than it is.
“I can assure you that there are a ton of people on Twitter who are very angry with me for speaking out and I want to be clear that this is not just a Tesla problem,”
The Tesla community isn’t mad at the author for “speaking out”, but we’re a little upset at the bias she represents. She sits on the board of directors of Veoneer, who listed Tesla as one of her competitors in her 2020 annual report. In fact, many had questions about her report that she simply ignored. Such as this:
Can you please explain why you chose to test the lane departure on a test track that did not have lane markings painted on it? pic.twitter.com/qwWn9nAWgV
– origamicyber (@origamicyber) August 19, 2021
You can watch the full interview here to find out more.
I want to stress that his position on boredom as a factor is actually quite correct. We all get bored easily, but that’s not Tesla’s fault. If we want to blame Tesla for their bored and bored drivers, then we have to blame all the manufacturers for their customers getting bored and having an accident. I’m coming for you, Farberware. Joke!
Do you appreciate the originality of CleanTechnica? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician or Ambassador – or Patreon Patron.