I agree with the spirit of this article but it reads less persuasively due to filler material of little value to the argument. The gratuitous appeals to emotion (<i>"Which car would you rather trust your children's lives to?"</i> or <i>"[...]so they can cope with failure conditions without killing you</i>") don't help persuade me either.<p>After re-reading, I still don't quite understand the point of splitting up points 1 through 3. Point 1 easily could have read "Tesla assumes it will be able to make a provably safe level 3 autonomous vehicle in the next few years". The arguments under the respective 3 sections could easily fit under this one heading.<p>Point 5 - although a hurdle, I fail to see how this is the responsibility of Tesla. Tesla is selling a product. They aren't guaranteeing the right to use that product in your jurisdiction. I can buy fireworks, but I'm not allowed to use them in my jurisdiction. Is it the responsibility of the fireworks company to lobby my government? They might get some more sales if they do, sure, but they aren't by any means required to. Why is it Tesla's sole responsibility to make the legislative push for autonomous driving? Even if we do lay the responsibility, for whatever reason, at the feet of the companies making the products... Responsibility should also be on Waymo and the slew of other companies pursuing autonomous driving. I fail to see why Tesla is singled out as the ethical bad guy here for this point.<p>Point 6 and 7 exist for literally every company, ever. One has to assume that Tesla is a going concern, just like everything else, until they aren't. Not really fair to jam these two points onto the list.<p>The real zinger:<p>><i>Of course, I have no first hand knowledge that anything unethical is happening at Tesla. But suppose even half of what I've presented here is true. Is it ethical to work on the Tesla autopilot software?</i><p>The spaghetti against the wall approach to arguing ethics is, if nothing else, a bold one.