[reeckoh]

There is an old parable about a frog and a scorpion:

>A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting it, but the scorpion promises not to, pointing out that it would drown if it killed the frog in the middle of the river. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: "I am sorry, but it is my nature".

Should we accept that the scorpion will always sting its associates, and continue to allow them to hitch rides on frogs? Or should we prevent the scorpions from getting into a position where they can sting others once their nature is readily apparent?

[timerol]

> Though also he should still be raked over the coals.

I think GP's position on that question is abundantly clear

[peterfirefly]

Not that old:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

[dmonitor]

I feel like I've seen it referenced a lot more in the past year. Did it get referenced on a podcast or something?

[abfan1127]

can we educate frogs, warn scorpions, still allow frogs to give rides, and hold scorpions accountable?

[dkjaudyeqooe]

We should ask, given the risk, what was the pay off for the frog?

This applies to FSD. Why risk your life testing software for the benefit of Tesla? Either FSD frogs are irrationally altruistic given that Tesla is a corporation, with wealthy shareholders, they are unable to judge the risk, or they are being mislead.

Given the large number of FSD frogs enforcement seems inevitable.