[HN Gopher] German court bans Tesla ad statements related to aut...
___________________________________________________________________
German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving
Author : camjohnson26
Score : 594 points
Date : 2020-07-14 15:34 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mobile.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (mobile.reuters.com)
| adamqureshi wrote:
| Why not call Full Self Driving: "Future Self Driving". This way
| you don't need to make the claim. People will make the inference
| from FSD. If they can change FSD to mean. "Future Self Driving"
| Perhaps this will help them make it very clear what the FSD can
| do and cannot do. amiright?
| H8crilA wrote:
| Tesla has been selling level 5 autonomy since 2016. I can see
| nothing wrong with that. Definitely not vaporware /s
|
| https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now...
| frenchy wrote:
| I'm not sure it should be called level 5 autonomy until Tesla
| is willing to take responsibility for any accidents it causes.
| H8crilA wrote:
| Not sure about that, but I'm sure it's not "full self driving
| capability". It has not been the case ever since they started
| advertising in 2016.
| fluffything wrote:
| When a plane auto-pilot fails (e.g. Boeing 737-MAX), the
| manufacturer is responsible for the failure and its
| consequences.
|
| That has always been the definition of auto-pilot.
|
| Tesla might be able to redefine the term in the US, but
| this ruling is proof that other countries disagree with
| that.
|
| Whatever Tesla is shipping isn't an autopilot, and calling
| it that is just deceptive marketing.
| rtkwe wrote:
| I mean looking at it it would be a good litmus test for how
| confident any automaker is in their tech, if the driver is
| still liable for crashes it implies the driver isn't fully
| out of the loop which is what I'd expect to be true if
| we're actually living up to the Autopilot name.
| Alupis wrote:
| I realize this is a sarcastic comment, but I think this
| illustrates the problem.
|
| Tesla vehicles cannot operate fully autonomous as-of now. Tesla
| has no idea if they'll need to replace or upgrade hardware
| either. They simply have not solved the problem yet, but want
| everyone to buy into the hype. And, the hype machine is
| working, unfortunately.
| fluffything wrote:
| > Tesla has no idea if they'll need to replace or upgrade
| hardware either.
|
| They have upgraded the hardware 3 times already.
|
| Maybe the hardware in the last generation of Tesla's
| suffices, but right now, nobody knows.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Sometimes it seems hype is the main fuel driving Elon's
| businesses. Self driving and self driving taxis for Tesla,
| Starlink for SpaceX,...
|
| But I have to admit, marketing wise he is a genius.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| It's a scam. They're implying level 5 capability is just
| around the corner, when none of the current hardware will
| ever get past level 2. The current cameras can't even stay
| clean enough to keep autopilot reliable, it'd be pretty
| foolish to rely on them for any kind of real self-driving.
|
| I love my car but the FSD debacle is embarassing. A lot of
| people are finding out that they'll never get anywhere near
| $8K value from their pre-purchase, and they bought a license
| that expires when they sell the car. I expect a class action
| lawsuit eventually (I'm surprised it hasn't happened
| already).
| actuator wrote:
| I wonder why Tesla even needed to go that far to make the
| product sell. It is already a damn good car, a leader in its
| space. Also, Waymo which was closest at that time to Level 5
| autonomy was far off from a product.
| giobox wrote:
| It's never been about selling product, although it helps. The
| hype around autonomy and full self driving has fuelled their
| share price growth for some time.
|
| Just selling cars alone does not justify Tesla's current
| valuation (how could it? Making cars is a notoriously tricky
| and oftentimes unprofitable business).
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| Because they can't sell the car for what it cost to produce.
| FSD has added ~$3,000 of essentially pure profit
| gibolt wrote:
| There is a reason no new manufacturers have succeeded in the
| past 100 years. Auto industry is tough and costly.
|
| Autopilot almost certainly gave them press and coverage that
| has helped sell cars and keep the company from collapsing.
|
| If a future promise is what it took to drive the battery
| revolution, it was a reasonable cost.
| sidibe wrote:
| It's not just for press, they directly make money selling
| "FSD" add-on for ever-increasing thousands of dollars which
| currently does a couple of gimmicks, but, trust him: will
| soon be driving you around effortlessly (and other
| passengers for $$ when you're not using it)
| gibolt wrote:
| Nobody said 'just'
| hudon wrote:
| I own a Tesla and love it. Having said that, "full self driving"
| is so far off what it actually does it's actually not just a
| marketing issue, it is a safety issue. I've had my Tesla drive
| towards an incoming lane, slam on the breaks in the middle of the
| highway with no cars in front of us, swerve into another lane
| with no warning, and probably other hiccups I don't remember.
|
| I know now I not only need to keep my hands on the wheel but I
| need to actively make sure the car doesn't kill us. And I know
| the car warned me the feature required awareness, but its name
| made me think it was way more developed and safe than it actually
| is, and that disconnect will surely cause other drivers to trust
| it more than they should.
| bjarneh wrote:
| > I need to actively make sure the car doesn't kill us
|
| Same experience here. Why people say this is relaxing; and
| takes the stress away from long distance driving is beyond
| me...
| kevincox wrote:
| This is what bothers me the most about "Autopilot". Marketing
| aside I think that this level of automation is in an uncanny
| valley of danger. It isn't good enough to take full control,
| but it is good enough that the driver feels safe enough to get
| distracted.
|
| I'm sure there are many of drivers who keep their full
| attention on the road, but in general humans are bad at
| focusing on tedious things that they don't feel are necessary.
| kohlerm wrote:
| It's surprising that it took so long to identify this as a
| dangerous lie
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| So no quotes either from what Tesla said or what the court said.
| Bit of a useless article.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| I agree with this wholeheartedly, even as a Tesla owner. Tesla
| goofed from the beginning by calling tech like "Autosteer" and
| "Traffic Assisted Cruise Control" under the moniker "Autopilot"
| while shifting everything above that to "Full Self-Driving". They
| should have called it "CoPilot" since that infers that you're
| still the driver in charge of controlling the vehicle and it
| would have had exactly the same reception (possibly better) than
| what's happening now. As it stands, it's misleading and, frankly,
| disappointing to get into a Tesla for the first time and try
| "Autopilot" only to realize that you have to keep your hands on
| the wheel, navigate the accelerator and brakes, stop at lights
| and stop signs, and basically drive the car while it keeps you in
| the lane and stops you from hitting other cars. That's not
| "Autopilot", that's "CoPilot".
| dwighttk wrote:
| With a copilot the pilot can go to the bathroom or go to sleep.
| Or die. Copilots are autonomous.
| ojnabieoot wrote:
| > Tesla goofed from the beginning by calling tech like
| "Autosteer" and "Traffic Assisted Cruise Control" under the
| moniker "Autopilot"
|
| I am not accusing you specifically of using weak language, but
| let's call a spade a spade: it's not a "goof," it's a dangerous
| and deceptive business practice. It's one that Elon Musk is
| directly responsible for and directly encouraged with
| misleading statements where he deliberately exaggerated the
| capabilities of Autopilot. It's a disgrace and one of many many
| many reasons why Tesla needs to outright fire Musk. There are
| too many good people at Tesla, who don't deserve his selfish
| and irresponsible leadership.
|
| To the people pointing out that airplane autopilots work
| similarly to Tesla Autopilot: the problem is not the foolish
| Tesla owners have never flows a plane before. The problem is
| that in the public mind, they "know" that "autopilot" means
| "totally autonomous" and they "know" that the computer-car-
| spaceship supergenius Elon Musk has been hyping his self-
| driving tech.
|
| It is true that highly knowledgeable people know that Musk is
| an idiot conman, that "autopilot" is a very limited set of
| features, and so on - and that none of these things detract
| from the fact that Tesla makes a good car. But Tesla fans
| shouldn't invent ridiculous exonerations. Tesla has a
| responsibility for the safety of its users and they failed.
| Fans (along with the EU and US) need to hold the company
| accountable.
| some-guy wrote:
| > It's a disgrace and one of many many many reasons why Tesla
| needs to outright fire Musk.
|
| I drove a co-worker's Tesla and I loved it--and I will never
| buy one for the reasons you mentioned. I'm glad Tesla exists
| to force other automakers to compete on the electric front,
| but that's the extent of my admiration for them.
| Shivetya wrote:
| I bought one in spite of Musk, simply put the technology of
| the car and that it brought back memories as a kid of all
| the cool concept cars that never got built sold me. That is
| performs so well it just a bonus. I feel like I am driving
| the future day in and day out.
|
| However I think that only does Musk misrepresent what the
| technology is capable of and the timeline I think that many
| quality of life features are missing simply because if he
| does not want it no one wants it; my bugaboo has been the
| poor support for bluetooth music from phones. It was only
| recently that a Tesla owner could select what track within
| a play list to play; they still cannot select the playlist,
| artist, and more, which are features common in every day
| cars and for many years.
|
| I have no plans on giving up my Tesla soon, I am looking
| forward to the Audi BEV TT so I can put convertible and EV
| together. That is 2023 at the earliest. At least Tesla is
| forcing the hands of other automakers
|
| PS: I would go so far as to state I believe the 8k cost
| they apply to full self driving is to convince people it
| really does what he claims. As in, it can only be so
| expensive because it must work. That 8k is also why I won't
| consider a new Telsa, originally I figured a Y would be
| nice
|
| PPS: I am sure besides myself many of us have posted here
| and elsewhere that the name "Autopilot" implied far too
| much. Glad some court stepped in and said stop it
|
| PPPS: Kind of fun a German court upheld this, considering
| all the years their own auto industry was committing
| outright fraud
| birdyrooster wrote:
| People using their childhood dreams as an excuse to be
| functional sociopaths doesn't cut it.
|
| https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/30/20891314/elon-
| musk-... https://www.elonmusk.today
| fsloth wrote:
| Are you a psychiatrist?
|
| I'd prefer people are called out for the bad things they
| do rather than get called by this or that psychiatric
| diagnostic term.
|
| Being diagnozed a sociopath is not a bad thing. _Doing_
| bad things is a bad thing, any psychiatric diagnosis or
| not.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > I think that only does Musk
|
| I think you dropped a 'not' in there.
| baxtr wrote:
| _> It is true that highly knowledgeable people know that Musk
| is an idiot conman_
|
| That and the richest man on the planet. What does this tell
| about us as a species? Some compare him to the late Jobs. I
| think this couldn't be farther from the truth.
| azernik wrote:
| He not quite the richest man on the planet - that's Jeff
| Bezos.
|
| 16-richest, from the last Forbes ranking that shows up on
| Google.
| lazyjones wrote:
| > _It is true that highly knowledgeable people know that Musk
| is an idiot conman_
|
| The same "highly knowledgable people" who have been shorting
| TSLA and parroting that the company is going broke any moment
| now, surely.
|
| I'm actually surprised people aren't ashamed to write such
| utter nonsense in a place like HN.
| AgloeDreams wrote:
| In fairness, the company set incredible records for
| fundraising and lines of credit every quarter to offset
| massive losses, ignores basic safety concerns in
| production, ships beta software, sold still non-existing
| products ( Roadster 2, Semi, Autopilot LV5) with a promise
| they would ship them, took reservations for cars at false
| prices they would eventually never ship or make hard to get
| [35K model 3 which was briefly sold, $39K Model Y which
| they cancelled in favor of a base $45K Model Y, $40K
| Cybertruck which they don't even know how big it will be or
| if it will pass any safety tests] and then used
| reservations numbers to leverage raising capital.
|
| If Tesla acted like a normal responsible company, they
| should have been out of cash like all the nay-sayers said.
| Instead they frauded and scammed their way alive.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Well, shorting Tesla was a bet. As was investing in it. A
| bet that had serious foundations, with Tesla potentially
| running out of money.
| ojnabieoot wrote:
| Look I really don't have a dog in the $TSLA or Tesla fight
| - I have no investments in the stock market and due to a
| disability I cannot drive a car. My grievance is with
| celebrity CEO worship, and in giving CEO credit for labor's
| accomplishments (which is particularly egregious in the
| case of SpaceX).
|
| Being an idiot conman and being a technical genius are not
| mutually exclusive. And clearly being an idiot conman and
| being the CEO of a valuable company aren't mutually
| exclusive. Musk's idiotic conning has repeatedly gotten
| Tesla into serious legal trouble, including running a con -
| and it's a plain con job - about Tesla's autonomous vehicle
| capabilities. I know I am being mean to Elon by calling him
| an idiot and if I were trying to be neutral I might say
| "recklessly dishonest." But facts are facts.
| lazyjones wrote:
| > _I know I am being mean to Elon by calling him an idiot
| [...] But facts are facts._
|
| You are not being mean, just silly. Elon clearly isn't an
| "idiot" however you stretch the meaning of the word, he's
| a highly capable and successful man and has demonstrated
| repeatedly his skill, both in engineering and
| entrepreneurship. And your opinion isn't a fact.
| wittyreference wrote:
| > let's call a spade a spade: it's not a "goof," it's a
| dangerous and deceptive business practice
|
| There's a very odd tendency for people to engage with
| corporate PR packages in the same way they engage in
| interpersonal interactions. In the abstract, sure, they get
| that it's a crafted artifact meant to maximize profits, but
| in the immediate sense... they act as though the words have
| _any intrinsic meaning at all_ rather than "white noise that
| maximizes likelihood of profit, while ideally not instigating
| litigation or regulation."
|
| It's not unique to Tesla. It's _every_ single time a major
| corp. issues a significant public statement, as though it 's
| some sort of earnest missive from the founder rather than a
| PR-crafted artifact vetted by legal, compliance, and probably
| the COO and CMO, if not a board member or two.
|
| Corps are profit-maximizing engines. They are not your
| buddies. They are not speaking from the heart. They're not
| even spinning something that started off as something from
| the heart. They are designing cognitive drone strikes meant
| to optimize public reception of current business practices.
| bluGill wrote:
| Many companies have learned (the hard way) that public
| statements are admissible to court. All public statements
| from most big companies go through many levels of checking
| to ensure they don't send a wrong message.
|
| I know of one case where the warning label on a lawnmower
| that rocks can be thrown conflicted with the advertising
| picture of a kid close to a lawnmower and therefore the
| company doesn't believe that warning lable. I'm not sure
| what came of it (probably settled out of court for big
| $$$). However many companies are careful what they say.
| wittyreference wrote:
| I'm not saying they're wrong to be careful. If my words
| could shift the share price of an entire enterprise, I'd
| have them damn carefully vetted, too.
|
| I'm saying that their words are very carefully crafted,
| and should be engaged with as the product of artifice,
| not genuine expression.
| dreamer7 wrote:
| > It is true that highly knowledgeable people know that Musk
| is an idiot conman
|
| Sorry to nitpick but highly knowledgeable people will surely
| never claim Musk is an idiot anything. He is definitely a
| genius in several ways.
|
| For something so technologically advanced as self-driving
| cars, his stuttering style seems to convey more sincerity to
| the general public than Steve Job's glib speech ever would
| dave5104 wrote:
| Musk isn't an idiot, he's overseen some great things at the
| companies he runs, and I hope the companies he's running
| continue pushing technology forward.
|
| But Musk as a human isn't so great. He'd do better to keep
| his mouth shut sometimes, and lay off Twitter every now and
| again. Between falsely accusing people of being pedophiles,
| claiming to take Tesla private in a tweet, and various
| other "incidents", he's kind of an idiot when it comes to
| PR.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Musk is technically great, he has OK business sense, he
| has really bad social interaction skills and really needs
| to work on developing a better filter.
| drcross wrote:
| >But Musk as a human isn't so great.
|
| I would be very hesitant to criticise someone who has
| arguably done/will do more for the continuation for
| humanity than anyone else who has ever lived.
|
| Maybe it's your definition of "isn't great" that needs
| re-calibration.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _who has arguably done /will do more for the
| continuation for humanity than anyone else who has ever
| lived._
|
| Because he's building some electric cars? How low is your
| bar?
| cjhopman wrote:
| But you don't understand. Car analysts since the early
| 90s have been saying that electric cars would become
| profitable and become a serious chunk of the market by
| 2020 because they all knew that musk was going to come
| along and show us how great electric cars are and save
| the world.
| catalogia wrote:
| Presumably they mean _" populate Mars and thus avert
| human extinction"_ but that's definitely counting
| chickens before they hatch.
| brabel wrote:
| He's an idiot in the sense that Trump is an idiot. Made
| billions (sure, not started from scratch, but they still
| made billions more than you and me), says stupid things
| all the time but they still can get away with it and win
| (the presidency, the most valued car company in the word,
| whatever it is they want).
| jacquesm wrote:
| Trump started out with 100's of millions. Musk started
| off significantly lower on the ladder.
| thecupisblue wrote:
| Musk's father owns a ruby mine in Africa.
| Alupis wrote:
| I thought the narrative was a $1 million dollar loan from
| his father? Do you have a source for "100's of millions"?
|
| Sure, a $1 million dollar loan from family is pretty
| generous, and an amazing starting place - certainly not a
| "from nothing" tale. However, it's not outlandish money
| for a business loan to a top-rated business school
| graduate with extensive industry experience either.
|
| I'd also wager if you gave most people $1 million
| dollars, they would not turn it into billions within
| their lifetime.
| jacquesm wrote:
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politic
| s/d...
| Alupis wrote:
| > but a Times investigation found that he received at
| least $413 million in today's dollars from his father's
| real estate empire, much of it through tax dodges in the
| 1990s
|
| Donald Trump had already taken over the business in 1971.
|
| Seriously disingenuous to call it "his father's real
| estate empire" 30 years later.
|
| Even more disingenuous to claim he received $413 million
| in today's dollars through tax dodges - it's not like you
| get paid by paying less taxes; that was money earned
| regardless. Not to mention the framing of "tax dodging"
| vs "paying the minimum amount the government required by
| law". (Taxes are due tomorrow - did you decide to pay
| more than you were required just out of generosity? I'd
| bet not.) It's also unclear what "records" the article is
| citing, since Trump's tax returns famously have never
| been released. I'd like to think, by now, if something
| nefarious was up with the Trump tax returns, the IRS
| would have taken notice...
|
| Clearly the NYT has an axe to grind. Their word choice,
| and decision to lump a decade into one monetary number,
| and represent earnings earned while serving as company
| president as some sort of fatherly gift is clearly a
| misrepresentation of reality.
|
| > Trump started out with 100's of millions
|
| Flatly, this is wrong. Ran the company for 30 years
| before earning that money. That's not "starting out" no
| matter what way you want to frame it.
|
| So, in short, this myth is busted.
| mathdev wrote:
| You cannot really trust a source as biased as NYT on
| anything about Trump.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Classic ad hominem. They write an article, list their
| sources and you dismiss it out of hand because of which
| entity wrote the article. Surely you can do better than
| that?
| Noughmad wrote:
| He is obviously a genius, like Steve Jobs, and Donald
| Trump, and just about every billionaire are. You don't
| become as successful as that without being both very lucky
| and very smart.
|
| What many people don't realize is that these people are not
| genius engineers, they are all genius marketers. Their
| amazing talent is not in creating something useful, but in
| convincing other people (investors, buyers, voters) to give
| them money.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| You're exactly right
| ojnabieoot wrote:
| To be clear: being an idiot and being a genius aren't
| mutually exclusive. Elon Musk is in many ways a genius
| business executive, and in many more ways a huge friggin'
| idiot.
|
| The idea that he's a "polymath"[1] completely whitewashes
| the actual scientists and engineers who did the actual work
| behind SpaceX and Tesla and SolarCity. I have seen
| literally zero evidence that Musk understands the physics
| and mathematics required to actually engineer a rocket or
| electronic car. For that matter, while SpaceX has made
| admirable technical contributions to economic spaceflight,
| they are not innovating new technologies in the way that
| government space agencies are (especially NASA).
|
| He seems like a decent programmer and, when he's not high
| on Twitter, a very good tech CEO. It seems like he has a
| rare "spark of vision." But translating these admirable
| qualities into universal genius is just worshipping the
| Cult of the CEO. Musk is, first and foremost, a celebrity
| venture capitalist.
|
| [1] Edit - I know you didn't say "polymath," I was
| responding to another rant from a few days ago. I do hear
| the term tossed around a lot and it drives me up a wall.
| haecceity wrote:
| Isn't airplane autopilot only used when there's no traffic
| around. An analogous autopilot for cars would never be used
| unless if you're in an empty parking lot.
| Symmetry wrote:
| Yes, anybody who has used an autopilot on a boat or
| airplane will understand that they work exactly the same
| way the "autopilot" on a Tesla works. But that's not how
| the general public understand the word and so Tesla
| shouldn't have used it in advertising copy aimed at the
| general public.
| jacquesm wrote:
| It goes further than that: and then, when - predictably -
| people die the company turns around and engages in the most
| terrible form of victim blaming I've ever seen, to suggest
| that those consumers should have known better than to believe
| their marketing.
| bredren wrote:
| Some of your points are valid though saying he is an idiot
| and a conman undercuts your statement.
|
| The man is no idiot, and while some of the things he has said
| have not come true, or not been true to begin with, i do not
| think it is not reasonable to describe him as a "conman."
| ojnabieoot wrote:
| See above about being an idiot and being a genius not being
| mutually exclusive. I am not denying that he is talented
| and he probably has a > 105 IQ.
|
| The Autopilot controversy is just a straight con job, and a
| very stupid one. The BS about the $420 stock price was a
| horrendously stupid con job. His disinformation mongering
| about coronavirus - when he is smart enough to know the
| truth - is also a con job, both for his fans and his
| workers. Deliberately under-counting workers injuries at
| Tesla plants is conning safety regulators - it's not as
| dumb as Elon's other cons, but it's a con. Removing safety
| markers because Elon doesn't like them aesthetically is
| maybe not a con job but it is remarkably idiotic. The PR-
| motivated stuff about Musk engineering a solution to those
| kids trapped in Thailand - straight-up con job, and one
| that blew up in his face due to his idiotic and narcissitic
| use of Twitter. Hyperloop (remember that?) was always a con
| job, and one that was so transparently stupid that nobody
| but Musk could have gotten away with it.
|
| I could go on. The point is that I am calling Musk an
| "idiot conman" because of
|
| a) his well-documented affinity for conning his customers,
| fans, investors, and government agencies
|
| b) his well-documented acts of being a huge idiot,
| including in his planning and execution of most of the
| above con jobs
| typon wrote:
| It's strange how much people will bend over backwards to give
| Musk the benefit of doubt when he openly lies about such
| things
| on_and_off wrote:
| There is a weird personality cult around somebody who is
| basically the Trump of tech.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Not a Musk fan by any stretch but that's unfair to Musk.
| He does deliver, albeit too late and overhyped. He also
| has a tendency to shoot his mouth off and doesn't know
| how to deal with dissent. But Trump is an outright fraud
| and that's several levels removed from where Musk sits,
| arguably Musk has done more in two decades than Trump has
| managed to achieve in his entire life.
| natch wrote:
| Some of us have explained many times how his quotes get
| taken out of context and twisted into being "promises" and
| "lies" but the haters have the upper hand at the moment.
| Believe what you want to but at least look at his
| statements yourself, with care, and in context, and notice
| when he prefaces things with "I think" and "I believe" etc.
|
| The bending over backwards is being done by the haters, not
| by his supporters. If anything his supporters are pretty
| quiet and just vote with their money.
| ardit33 wrote:
| While he has achieved a lot, His claims sometimes are
| downright bizarre... I don't know if it is just intentional
| deception, drugs, or some kind of bi-polar mania, or a
| combination of all the above.
|
| We should be able to make our Teslas to be fully automated
| robo-taxis by now... and earn cash on the side....
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-robo-taxis-elon-
| musk-p...
|
| I wouldn't trust my family's life, on his (often)
| delusional claims.
| ianmobbs wrote:
| Most of the achievements people ascribe to him aren't
| even his. Musk bought the company then gave himself the
| title of 'founder'. He's a businessman, not a scientist
| singlow wrote:
| What did the company have when he bought it apart from a
| name?
| ianmobbs wrote:
| They already had the Roadster, Musk just funded it.
| dahfizz wrote:
| That's a bit misleading. Musk was a part of Tesla from
| day 1 and provided most of the funding. He served as
| Chairman since 2004.
|
| When he took over in 2008, Tesla had just started
| producing the first roadster, which was really just a
| conversion kit for a lotus. After musk became CEO, Tesla
| became the world's most valuable car company...
| ianmobbs wrote:
| There is a difference between "funding a Roadster" and
| "designing and fully understanding the physics and
| mechanics of the Roadster".
| dahfizz wrote:
| > designing and fully understanding the physics and
| mechanics of the Roadster.
|
| I've never seen anyone claim Musk did that. What are you
| on about?
| catalogia wrote:
| From the context of your comment, it seemed as though you
| meant to support the notion that Elon Musk was working as
| a scientist, not a businessman.
| drcross wrote:
| >He's a businessman, not a scientist
|
| How can you even say that? I've heard more scientific
| discussions out of him compared to all the other CEO's
| I've ever heard speak combined. Musk has a head for
| physics and numbers and can easily come up with
| calculations for classical mechanics, material
| technology, information theory off the top of your head.
| For you to say the contrary is doublespeak.
| kmonsen wrote:
| The poster you commented said a true fact (Elon bought a
| company and calls himself founder). There is no facts
| across your rambling response, and you say others do
| doublespeak?
| ianmobbs wrote:
| Because there's a difference between having "a head for
| physics and numbers" and "working with physics and
| numbers for your career". Fundamentally, he is a CEO,
| who's job is not to work on any of the underlying
| technology. His job grow the company.
| nemothekid wrote:
| Tesla is one part car company, one part battery company,
| and 5 parts marketing hype. The only reason people are
| seriously contemplating buying full electric cars today
| instead of the bullshit BMW produced is because Iron Man
| convinced enough people that electric cars will
| simultaneously fly to mars and cure world hunger. The stock
| reflects this.
|
| In other words, there is no Tesla without Elon's meme
| machine. The graveyard of failed EV startups was chockful
| of more well meaning participants before Tesla came along.
| I'd go as far as to argue that the Elon's bullshit was the
| only thing that could stand up to big oil.
| typon wrote:
| Are you saying people see Musk as a necessary "evil" to
| fight off a bigger evil (in the form of oil companies)
| and so they forgive his misgivings in a sort of
| utilitarian calculus?
| nemothekid wrote:
| No. I'm saying Tesla is successful _because_ of Elon 's
| hype. They are not "forgiving" his misgivings, they fully
| believe Elon will solve world hunger and invent FTL space
| travel. If you ask anyone who's bought into Tesla, they
| will tell you the "Auto Pilot on airplanes" lie, but they
| also believe Elon will deliver on Level 5 Autonomous
| driving. No cares about electric cars, they care about
| the guy's company who is using electric cars as a
| platform to save the world.
| Taek wrote:
| > they fully believe Elon will solve world hunger and
| invent FTL space travel
|
| Well, maybe not fully believe, but certainly believe that
| Elon will move the needle materially in the right
| direction. I'd much rather spend my money on a product
| that supports a billionaire who is determined to save the
| world (Elon) than I would spend my money on a product
| that supports a billionaire who seems determined to take
| it over at any cost (Page, Brin, etc)
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| What's the autopilot on airplanes lie?
|
| If you said "misdirection" or something, I would fully
| understand. But what's untrue about saying that plane
| autopilot is pretty limited?
| Symbiote wrote:
| The man on the Clapham omnibus [1] thinks aeroplane
| autopilot pretty much flies the plane, with the pilot
| just watching. That's what is relevant to Tesla's
| marketing material, and they are surely fully aware of
| this.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_on_the_Clapham_omni
| bus
| dmoy wrote:
| It's not telling the whole truth, because the average
| person doesn't fly planes and has no firm grasp on how
| extensive a plane's autopilot is, or what the difference
| in situations is. What they do see is the Tesla marketing
| videos that hype it up to be better than it actually is.
|
| It's lying by omission.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| On Tesla's part, it's lying by omission.
|
| In the context of someone using airplane autopilot as a
| _defense_ of Tesla, they 're not omitting anything. So I
| don't think that's a full answer to my question.
| vvanders wrote:
| Remove autopilot from a Model S and it's still a hell of
| a car. Just from a pure driving dynamics a mechanical
| engine can't touch a VFD in terms of power dynamics and
| range(which is also why Diesel-Electric locomotives use
| them).
|
| Don't disagree on the autopilot, the killer app has
| always been for me stop-and-go traffic where the speeds
| are lower and the sensors need to do less vision and more
| radar based.
| AgloeDreams wrote:
| Short of range issues, you should drive a Taycan to see
| just how much better it can get. The Car lacks the
| infotainment tech of Tesla, the network, and the
| autopilot tech but from a driving dynamics and quality
| standpoint makes the Model S feel poor.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I want to address this because in spite of Elon (whether
| punching down with Twitter or COVIDiocy, etc) burning up
| a lot of the goodwill he had accumulated in the past,
| these things remain:
|
| The reason people think Elon may do level 5 autonomy is
| because his companies have accomplished several things
| that _industry experts_ said were either infeasible or
| impossible. Fast charging, large-battery electric cars
| that are faster than almost all conventional cars.
|
| Remember, pre-Tesla, electric cars were looked at as
| pathetic toys, like golf carts or, AT BEST, green bling
| like Priuses which are pretty slow and kinda ugly.
|
| And not only has Tesla ramped up to mass production of
| these desirable vehicles, but they've also done it during
| the ending of EV credits (which almost all their
| competitors still have access to!) AND crazy low gas
| prices. And every time, the media plays up this or that
| "Tesla killer" that never ends up living up to the name
| and often completely tanks. Every time media or experts
| say Tesla will fail and they don't reinforces the view in
| many that Tesla is somehow special.
|
| And even SpaceX's early successes like Falcon 1, Falcon
| 9, and Dragon Cargo were unprecedented for a private
| company and at those extremely low costs (at the time,
| Aerospace was a money pit for cost-inflating defense
| contractors, not nimble rocket startups). Then when they
| proposed propulsive landing, some NASA experts in the
| field thought it'd fail. I know one NASA GNC guy who said
| droneship landing is impossible. Clearly not, as we see
| now that it's routine! Then Falcon Heavy, And now Dragon
| Crew... beating out Boeing, who had long been favored by
| old guard experts to beat SpaceX to ISS. Similar experts
| were certain SpaceX would be beat by OneWeb to launching
| the initial constellation... and we know how that has
| turns out (OneWeb went bankrupt). Then experts said that
| SpaceX had no Starlink terminals... until of course
| pictures emerged of sites they've had user terminals
| testing for months already.
|
| So while I share the skepticism for level 5 autonomy, you
| should keep in mind That Musk's companies keep
| accomplishing what many folks (who should know what
| they're talking about) said couldn't be done. And the
| more those experts say it's impossible, the greater that
| Musk's reputation soars after the task is completed
| nonetheless.
| adamjcook wrote:
| > The reason people think Elon may do level 5 autonomy is
| because his companies have accomplished several things
| that industry experts said were either infeasible or
| impossible.
|
| That is all well and good, but what is at issue here and
| in many of these comments is the deceptive/dangerous
| marketing around Tesla's current offerings and,
| implicitly, the potential dangers it presents to the
| public roadways.
|
| There is no progress if said "progress" is achieved
| unethically at any stage of its development.
|
| I think we all, deep down, know this to be true.
|
| I think Musk does not believe in that or marginalizes it
| (to cynically achieve business objectives) given some of
| his public statements and actions (snubbing the NTSB
| during the Mountain View investigation, taking his own
| hands off the wheel for a considerable period of time
| during an early 60 Minutes interview, several
| questionable statements on Twitter, glossing over the
| hundreds of abuses on YouTube and other social media
| platforms) with respect to Tesla - particularly in the
| past year or so.
|
| Furthermore, let us consider that developing a highly
| desirable electric vehicle and the technical bar to clear
| to achieve that _pales_ in comparison technologically to
| what Musk and Tesla are promising in Level 5 autonomous
| driving several times (wrongly) in the past and in the
| near future. Level 5 Autonomy presents several
| unpredictable engineering unknowns that may require
| similarly unpredictable breakthroughs while the
| development of say, the Model 3, was an iterative
| improvement upon what was already available in the market
| at the time - impressive improvement though it may be.
| hef19898 wrote:
| What exactly did his companies deliver, that experts said
| was impossible, in the technological sense I mean?
| Reusable rockets, deemed possible but not economic due to
| the low number of launches. SpaceX delivered amazing
| stuff, so, but nothing impossible. EVs were a thing
| already 100 years ago, so technically totally feasible,
| as is mass production. And the battery tech is to large
| part Panasonic. Still impressive what Tesla did, but
| again nothing technologically impossible.
|
| Not feasible is a different thing. A lot of people said
| that about EVs and reusable rockets. With EVs he pushed
| the industry in zzhe right direction, at enormous costs.
| Funding seems to be directly linked to Elon, so. And
| whether or not reusable rockets are feasible is hard to
| tell, since SpaceX isn't publishing any results.
|
| I think that the moment Elon runs out of stuff to hype
| and sell to investors, or just fails to sell, is the
| moment his companies go down. Which would be a pity.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| > What exactly did his companies deliver, that experts
| said was impossible, in the technological sense I mean?
|
| Landing the Falcon 9 booster on a droneship. As a
| physicist, I never believed it was impossible (the bar
| for "impossible" is rather high in physics) and yet an
| expert in the field told me it was!
| wz1000 wrote:
| First flight: 1993
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
| ummonk wrote:
| I mean, people had demonstrated VTOL rocket landings
| before SpaceX came along. It was obviously just a matter
| of scaling it up and throwing tons of engineering man
| hours and test money at it, as SpaceX did.
| benjohnson1707 wrote:
| 100 $ / kWh battery packs. Or the range of the Semi,
| deemed 'physically impossible' by a Daimler exec. Let's
| see how that goes.
|
| Musk's whole point is this: much more things are
| technologically feasible, but most people / companies
| limit themselves within apparent constraints.
|
| As mentioned: he's a physicist. From a physics
| standpoint, only a small amount of things are actually
| impossible. Only the deepest fundamentals give rise to
| constraints, and only those are the constraints he
| accepts. Everything else is debatable. At least. Sure,
| money so that he can throw army of talented engineers at
| problems helps. But it's his whole point! If it's your
| goal and it's possible in principle, reach for it.
|
| Be it batteries, reusable rockets, autopilot.
|
| That's why he says that it's possible in principle to
| achieve level 5 autonomy without lidar (having worked
| with lidar as chief engineer at SpaceX) and that it's
| possible in principle to do brain-machine-brain
| communication of language or complex ideas within a
| decade.
|
| It might not work eventually. If so, it might be very
| well delayed for years.
|
| But there is a reason that ppl like Thiel or Palihapitiya
| say: never bet against Elon.
|
| Imagine Tesla actually rolling out level 5 autonomy
| within a year or two...
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| > hen when they proposed propulsive landing, some NASA
| experts in the field thought it'd fail. I know one NASA
| GNC guy who said drone ship landing is impossible.
|
| Propulsive landing was not a spacex innovation. They
| simply picked back up the research agenda of Delta
| Clipper.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| I think people have a warped view of what a hero is.
| Simplistic morality stories in our entertainment have
| primed us to think of heroes as better than regular
| people, and see anyone larger than life who isn't better
| than regular people as a villain.
|
| In actual fact though, heroes are both better and worse
| than regular people. The ancient Greeks understood this,
| which is why their myths are still compelling today.
| binrec wrote:
| Musk is a great hype man in an industry where hype is the
| difference between success and failure. If he'd started
| out in a different field, he could've been the next Tom
| Ford or Zaha Hadid. That's not necessarily a statement
| about the quality of his or his companies' work - Zaha
| Hadid does not make nice buildings, and I wouldn't buy a
| Tesla - but it's difficult to say whether Tesla would've
| succeeded if not for Musk's hype... and the point of
| great hype men is that people buy into the hype.
|
| On balance, having a hype man for [PayPal Mafia voice]
| innovation in the world of atoms seems like a good thing.
| Musk may not be the best person for the role, but you
| probably have to be a little crazy to want to be a
| celebrity in the first place.
| reubenswartz wrote:
| Have you driven one? There is plenty of (over)hype, but
| the cars are quite nice.
| nemothekid wrote:
| I have, and I also adore the cars, my next car will
| likely be a Tesla and I own the stock. I've spent a lot
| of time researching the company so I didn't come to this
| conclusion by being bitter over the company.
|
| I think it's important to point out that the success of
| the company is largely built on the mythos of the man
| rather than the objective success of the cars. Tesla,
| earlier this week reached a market cap exceeding Toyota,
| and is larger than every other American auto manufacturer
| combined, despite having a fraction of the revenue. A lot
| of that is predicated on the "fibs" that
|
| * All the "data" being collected by Tesla cars will be
| used to create full autonomous driving
|
| * The battery technology will be so desirable that Tesla
| will sell batteries to everyone
|
| * SpaceX will put a colony on mars, and they will only
| drive Teslas on mars
|
| You remove Musk from the equation, and its doubtful that
| any other person could convince investors, fans, and
| potential customers that Tesla will ever accomplish of
| these things and tank the value of the company. If that
| happens it's clear that Musk will not only lose a ton of
| money, but ,depending on how profitable they are, they
| will lose their cash cow that allows Tesla to
| aggressively grow.
| foobarian wrote:
| I think I prefer not to look at stock / market cap too
| much in this climate of excess money sloshing around.
| It's just a popularity vote.
|
| What I really have to give Tesla is: they have cars; they
| actually make them in factories they built; they built
| their own battery factory; they also invest into software
| side of things. And lastly they invested a ton into the
| charger network, which initially helped them get off the
| ground.
|
| Other companies may have EVs but I feel they are not as
| invested / well matched to IC car manufacturer culture.
| But again, time and numbers will tell - who is actually
| making them, how many, and how well do they work.
| bluGill wrote:
| Car companies have always been build engines and assembly
| of body organizations, buying other parts from whoever.
| Each is a bit different but nothing new about not owning
| all the technology. If it isn't a competitive advantage
| why bother?
| foobarian wrote:
| I appreciate your comment on competitive advantage. What
| would it be in Tesla's case? It's not really the car
| design or assembly. I know they tried to play "disrupt"
| games with throwing software at the production line but I
| understand it didn't go well.
|
| Couple things that come to mind:
|
| 1) SV software culture, kinda coming from Musk. This
| helps with battery pack management (important), electric
| motor control (important) and fancy car UI (less
| important perhaps but a "cool" factor. I think I count
| autopilot here)
|
| 2) Skin in the game. This is a bit meta, but some of the
| things they've done take some real guts and leadership.
| In their case it was do-or-die. Things like charger
| network, or getting the cars sold without dealerships, or
| building their own battery factory, or maybe the very
| idea of a production EV. I don't see this with incumbents
| - even if they have EV lines they could probably shut
| them down without much impact. Maybe this will not last
| long, I guess VW promised to switch to all electric new
| platforms? At that point they are kinda committed.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| "and they will only drive Teslas on mars"
|
| Are you sure that's part of the hype? I've never heard
| that one. People definitely have positive associations
| because of SpaceX, but associations don't need a weird
| justification like that.
| catalogia wrote:
| _" Tesla Cybertruck (pressurized edition) will be
| official truck of Mars"_
|
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1197627433970589696
|
| Anecdotally, it's been a meme for years that everything
| Elon Musk does is about getting to Mars. Solar City? Mars
| needs solar. Tesla? ICE cars don't work on Mars.
| Hyperloop? Big vacuum chambers like that don't make sense
| on earth, but on Mars they might. Personally I'm highly
| skeptical of this narrative, but I've seen it expressed
| many times by different people going back years. I think
| a tweet like the above is Elon Musk playing into it,
| throwing some red meat to his most ardent fans.
|
| Example comment:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20044584
| belval wrote:
| In the defense of the man, he said himself that the stock
| was overpriced so I think blaming him for Tesla's market
| cap beating Toyota's is a bit much.
| awad wrote:
| This isn't a comment on the advertising but I am struck
| by how Tesla and Elon Musk remind me of Apple and Steve
| Jobs. Both very divisive companies and leaders prone to
| downright emotional attacks from one side and staunch
| defense by the other. While has been quite a bit of
| hyperbole, overselling, and straight up failure to
| deliver, you can't dispute that both pushed their
| respective industries forward almost singlehandedly and
| consequently reap the financial success.
| AgloeDreams wrote:
| Steve Jobs didn't go off talking about how the stock is
| overvalued and go off producing short shorts as a joke.
| He had numerous notes of how he didn't care about what
| the competitors or nay-sayers said. Job's jabs at others
| (flash, app store rejections) were generally marketing,
| breif, and thought through. He almost never talked about
| future products and would often say 'let's see what the
| future holds'.
|
| Both are product minded people who were interested in
| going into the weeds of the product but Jobs was focused
| on the UX but Musk is incredibly focused on being
| impressed by technical details for either the cool factor
| or some other detail.
|
| These two both were micromanagers and outspoken leaders
| but thats where the similarities end. Musk is about his
| own interests of humor, cool factor, or impression. Jobs
| was focused on 'best' to a fault. I think the biggest
| difference between the two is that Jobs had a lot of time
| to get beat down by failure so he could become humble and
| learn how to lead people and care. (Not to say he is an
| insane example of it, I simply mean that early Jobs acted
| closer to Elon and leadership risk factor. Next changed
| that.)
| sergiosgc wrote:
| I personally think the stock market is bonkers about
| Tesla. It's a local effect over the possibility of
| entering the S&P, maybe some short squeeze and possibly
| expectations about new tech on battery day. Having said
| that, I think the relative valuation can be supported
| without any of those outlandish claims.
|
| Tesla produces about 300k vehicles a year. Toyota
| produces 30x that. However, the demand over Teslas meant
| they almost did not feel any demand impact because of
| Covid, while Toyota saw a 30% demand drop. There is a
| huge room for growth on EVs, and EV today means Tesla.
|
| If Tesla has a 5 year lead, and if Toyota continues to
| fumble the technology transition, an actual revenue
| overtake in 10 years is imaginable. Hugely optimistic,
| but within the realm of possibility, with no need for
| Mars dreams.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _However, the demand over Teslas meant they almost did
| not feel any demand impact because of Covid, while Toyota
| saw a 30% demand drop._
|
| Tesla doesn't even define what a "delivery" is (remember
| factory-gated?), nor do I believe any numbers that come
| out of China, so I'm skeptical that they weren't affected
| by Covid-19. Personally, I think they "delivered" a
| number to ensure the stock analysts are appeased.
|
| If demand is through the roof, and profits are negligent,
| what have they cut Model Y prices already?
|
| > _if Toyota continues to fumble the technology
| transition_
|
| Toyota pioneered, and continues to sell, hybrid electric
| vehicles (fuel cell, too). Pure BEVs have many issues
| (including cost), so it isn't like the market has 100%
| decided on the technology yet.
| bluGill wrote:
| I believe tesla's numbers. When you have a backlog of
| sales a few cancled orders just changes the queue. Toyota
| didn't have that. Tesla also had customers in industry
| least affected (engineers and other upper class) who
| didn't need to adjust their life as much as waiters did.
| flywheel wrote:
| >* SpaceX will put a colony on mars, and they will only
| drive Teslas on mars
|
| You keep saying some interesting things and then you say
| something ridiculous that makes the rest of what you say
| seems pretty questionable.
| lazyjones wrote:
| > _The only reason people are seriously contemplating
| buying full electric cars today instead of the bullshit
| BMW produced is because Iron Man convinced enough people
| that electric cars will simultaneously fly to mars and
| cure world hunger._
|
| Is this supposed to be ironic or do you actually believe
| this drivel?
|
| Drive a modern EV and try again. Most Tesla owners will
| never go back to a noisy, smelly, crappy, slow ICE.
| nemothekid wrote:
| It's supposed to be ironic - if Tesla were "only better
| cars", then people wouldn't bend over backwards to give
| Elon every benefit of the doubt. A "nicer car" doesn't
| get you to the point where people worship your just born
| baby on Twitter. Teslas are amazing cars. However, Tesla
| is valued so much more than just delivering a better
| horse, and I don't think they could have scaled up as
| quickly had they not been financed by memes (I don't want
| to downplay Tesla's amazing execution up until this
| point, they have taken the opportunity they got and
| delivered, they could have easily squandered under the
| weight of Elon's promises).
| Aunche wrote:
| Have you driven a modern ICE? I rented a new Honda Accord
| this weekend. Besides the Model 3's crazy acceleration,
| and automatic lane changing, I think the Accord matches
| or exceeds a Model 3 in every single way, and it's
| roughly half the price. This isn't to say Teslas aren't
| impressive, but I do think they're overhyped.
| lazyjones wrote:
| > _Besides the Model 3 's crazy acceleration, and
| automatic lane changing, I think the Accord matches or
| exceeds a Model 3 in every single way_
|
| Except noise, pollution, complexity/maintenance cost, OTA
| updates, large touchscreen navigation that gets updated
| continuously, having to visit gas stations etc. etc.
|
| ICE is just obsolete technology. Half the performance at
| 10 times the noise and infinitely more pollution.
| thekyle wrote:
| I like EVs but the biggest thing that prevents me from
| buying one is range anxiety. I say this because I think
| it's funny that you consider having to visit gas stations
| a weakness of ICE, when I consider it the only reason to
| still own an ICE.
| Aunche wrote:
| I agree that EVs are the future, but plenty of companies
| have been working on them, but nobody gave a shit until
| Elon made them sexy. Also, most people will drive ICEs
| until EVs get cheaper and enough infrastructure is in
| place to support them.
| foepys wrote:
| Noise actually isn't a factor. After about 20mph tire
| noise drowns out engine noise.
|
| Excluding cars that are purposely build/modified to be
| annoyingly loud.
| lazyjones wrote:
| > _After about 20mph tire noise drowns out engine noise._
|
| This has been claimed over and over and is possibly true
| in some test scenarios but not in any real situation.
| Noise is additive, the engine noise may not be clearly
| audible, but tire+engine noise is always louder than just
| tire noise. And any time an ICE actually revs up, it's
| clearly audible at any high speed.
| Aunche wrote:
| Luxury cars have a lot of sound dampening, so engine
| noise is hardly an issue. A Royce Royce Phantom has a v12
| but is more quiet than a Tesla.
| bdamm wrote:
| I can hammer the go pedal in my Tesla any time I want and
| not worry about trumpeting the intersection. It's pretty
| satisfying actually. Which is probably why ICE drivers
| are starting to hate Teslas. But you know what they
| say... if you can't beat 'em...
| bluGill wrote:
| Most maintenance costs are the same. Other than oil
| changes which are cheap enough to not really matter.
|
| Once in a while something goes wrong and is expensive.
| But I've had electric motors (ie a drill) fail too.
| w0utert wrote:
| Not saying that Tesla makes bad cars or that electric
| vehicles are not the future, but you have to realise that
| the things you mention are not necessarily things
| everyone cares about or even appreciates. For many people
| all Tesla cars are way out of their budget for example,
| or not big enough, or they don't like the interior
| finish, or they actually enjoy the sound of a powerful
| ICE, or they don't like longer charging times and
| need/want longer range, or they like to be able to work
| on their own cars or take them to their preferred repair
| shop for maintenance, or they have a brand affinity and
| want to wait for an electric model of their favoured
| manufacturer, etc.
|
| Even in spite of all the good things about Tesla's, the
| list of reasons people could have to _not_ want buy a
| Tesla is endless.
|
| This is not even considering the fact that some people
| (myself included) won't even consider a Tesla just for
| Musk's antics alone.
| bdamm wrote:
| Have you driven a Model 3? It's like night and day.
| Everything that burns gasoline feels like a dinosaur to
| me now after driving a Model 3. I can't stand renting
| cars, they are all complete junk compared to my Model 3
| at home. I said this to a Hertz in Denver, they gave me
| their best Jaguar. It stinks, it is slow, it is pathetic.
| It's basically game over for ICE, and they know it. They
| have 10-15 years maybe but at that point, nobody will be
| buying a gas car, because they're disgusting, expensive,
| unsafe, and slow compared to an EV, and everyone will
| know it by that time.
|
| ICE is rapidly going obsolete, and Tesla is making money
| digging the grave.
| justapassenger wrote:
| > I can't stand renting cars, they are all complete junk
| compared to my Model 3 at home. I said this to a Hertz in
| Denver, they gave me their best Jaguar.
|
| I can't stand meat. I've asked McDonalds to give me their
| best BigMac and it was horrible.
| Aunche wrote:
| Model 3s drive great for a practical sedan, but for
| getting to point A to point B, I'd slightly prefer a
| regular economy car. Tesla's UI doesn't quite make up for
| physical knobs and buttons yet, and gasoline makes road
| trips a lot easier. I'm really looking forward to the
| Rav4 Prime and plan on getting that after I move to a
| place with charging.
| bluGill wrote:
| Almost everything unsafe about gas cars applies
| regardless of the power train. The only exception is
| leaving it running in a closed room (and even there it
| isn't nearly as bad for a modern car)
|
| Every car I've ever owned had no problem reaching freeway
| speeds. Even my geo metro which is rightly considered
| underpowered at best (and mine had a misfire problem).
| I'm not going to a track so I don't need more speed than
| is legal.
| bdamm wrote:
| EVs are much safer than gasoline cars because of how the
| mass in the car is distributed. Gasoline cars have a
| giant brick in the front (engine and transmission) which
| moves back into the passenger compartment in a frontal
| collision. Automotive engineers have to work all kinds of
| magic to stop the engine from smashing passengers. In an
| EV, the big sled of batteries in the bottom causes the
| car to rotate away from the crash energy, and makes it
| almost impossible to flip. Plus EVs can use that frontal
| space for energy absorption.
|
| It's actually a big deal.
| bumby wrote:
| I couldn't find any after a quick search, but are you
| aware of any studies that compare EV to ICE safety
| normalized for model year? It would be an interesting
| comparison given the assumption that there are a lot more
| older (and this less safe) ICE vehicles on the road
| cheerlessbog wrote:
| I took my BMW i3 in for service recently and got a high
| end 2019 BMW SUV loaner..worth 50% more. I was expecting
| to be impressed. Instead I was amazed how much I disliked
| it - clumsy tech, loud, needs fill ups...it seems ICE
| tech is at a dead end. I truly wouldn't want that vehicle
| if it was free.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| Replying here because your other comment hit the depth
| limit.
|
| For decades ICE cars have been designed to drop off the
| mounts and go under the cabin while absorbing energy in a
| frontal crass. There's not some dramatically higher risk
| of the engine crushing your legs vs a BEV.
|
| There are many reasons to prefer the BEV, but please
| don't spread FUD.
| yumraj wrote:
| I was all for it and in fact had even reserved a Model 3
| when it was announced, but later cancelled after
| Tesla/Musk engaged in their pricing shenanigans.
|
| And, then I had a conversation with a friend who has a
| Model X and driven from SJ to LA, and he mentioned that
| it needed 3 charges each way. _Each Way_... Yes, it can
| be argued that how often do people drive from SJ to LA,
| but still...
|
| On top of that Musk acting like a dude who's permanently
| high on coke, quality issues with Tesla, the _pedo_
| affair, his fights with SEC, the drama he did regarding
| opening the Fremont plant during Covid-19 and so on and
| on ......
|
| Anyway, long story short, I'm really not looking to buy a
| Tesla anymore..
| sib wrote:
| I live in LA now, used to live in Sunnyvale (right next
| to San Jose), and have made that drive both directions.
|
| In my Model 3, it takes 1 stop, for 25-30 minutes, at the
| Kettleman City Supercharger. Good time to grab a snack,
| use the restroom, and pretty much get back on the road.
| jedberg wrote:
| FWIW your friend must have a _very_ heavy foot. My
| brother-in-law has a Tesla and goes from SJ to LA a few
| times a year. They make one stop in the middle to
| supercharge, and use the time to go to the bathroom and
| have lunch. The car is usually charged before they are
| done eating.
|
| When we caravan, the Tesla is never holding us up.
| yumraj wrote:
| I really cannot comment on that. My friend I believe has
| the regular ~250 mile, or so, range Model X, so perhaps
| your brother-in-law has a longer range, but that still
| won't explain 3 times vs 1. So, don't know..
|
| Edit: Now self-doubt is creeping in and I wonder if they
| had gone to Palm Springs and not just LA. The
| conversation was over a year ago.. Will that result in 3
| charges each way? I've never driven to Palm Springs, so
| not sure if there is another mountain pass in that
| direction or not.
| Dahoon wrote:
| No one can take you serious when you write drivel like
| this. I have driven many cars more silent than a Tesla.
| Even my own Alfa Romeo makes as little noise and way less
| for people outside. Hell even my neighbor's Ford Mondeo
| is harder for me to hear than a Tesla driving by on the
| 50km/t limited street outside my garden. It is so so easy
| to find the Tesla and Musk fans in threads like these.
| Owning both types (ice + ev) makes it even easier.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| It's a personality cult at this point; they will never even
| entertain the idea that the glorious leader can err, or
| that if he does, it's for our own good.
| ummonk wrote:
| The people who claim airplane autopilots work similarly are
| flat out lying. Pilots can briefly take their attention away
| from the plane without issue. They have to be present and
| ready to intervene but not constantly closely monitoring what
| the aircraft is doing. There is a very real difference in the
| amount of attention required.
| phire wrote:
| That is more about how planes and cars are different than
| about how plane and Tesla autopilots are different.
|
| When driving a car, if you take your hands off a car, you
| will crash within seconds. Either you will come to a
| corner, or the shape of the road will just cause you to
| drift off. You are always zooming past obstacles that are
| meters away from you. Often less.
|
| Planes are different. Even without an autopilot, the pilots
| have trim wheels that allow them to adjust all the surfaces
| so the plane flys excatly level and stable when they aren't
| touching the controls.
|
| So even without an autopilot, the plane is able to fly for
| minutes at a time without the pilot touching the controls.
| Eventually the balance will change, fuel is burns and the
| wind conditions might change, but these things happen
| slowly.
|
| All the autopilot really does is extend the amount of time
| the pilots can avoid touching the controls from minutes to
| hours.
|
| The other major difference with planes is the available
| recovery time from any issue is much longer, at least when
| not landing/taking off. When planes are near the ground the
| pilots are require to pay just as much attention as Tesla
| drivers are, actually far more attention.
|
| But when planes are at high altitude, pilots have tens of
| seconds to detect something is going wrong, disengage the
| autopilot and correct the attitude. There are no obstacles.
| ATC keeps other planes far away.
|
| But with cars, you are always seconds away from hitting an
| object. The driver needs to be able to take over from the
| autopilot instantly.
|
| Plane autopilots work great for planes. They simply don't
| transfer over to cars. The operating environment is
| completely different.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| I don't think it's dangerous, necessarily, unless you ignore
| people's personal responsibility in the situation as well. As
| currently designed, "Autopilot" requires you to keep your
| hands on the steering wheel, provide rotational counter-
| weight on it, and you have to agree to safety and attention
| disclaimers before you can even enable the features.
|
| Yes, there are absolutely misconceptions that may happen with
| the general public who think that "Autopilot" is completely
| autonomous but anyone who actually owns the vehicle and has
| the ability to drive with it would have to be willingly
| negligent in order to consider it "dangerous" or "deceptive".
| As an example, someone posted a link as a comment to the OP
| stating that Elon has been marketing Teslas as FSD when, in
| reality, the blog post in question just says that every Tesla
| has the hardware that makes it capable of it and that's
| absolutely true.
|
| You're right that the general public auto-translates
| "Autopilot" to "Fully Self-Driving" but that's just as much a
| media and reporting problem as it is a Tesla or Elon problem.
| WA wrote:
| Tesla's own website mentions Autopilot and full self-
| driving capabilities on the same page. Just go and
| configure a car and see if anyone could ever misunderstand
| Autopilot in that context.
|
| Add a bunch of cool YouTube videos of people presumably
| sleeping on the wheel.
|
| Add a CEO who claims "car can run nightly errands soon" and
| "level 5 very soon" (by redefining level 5) and you easily
| have the currenct perception.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > As an example, someone posted a link as a comment to the
| OP stating that Elon has been marketing Teslas as FSD when,
| in reality, the blog post in question just says that every
| Tesla has the hardware that makes it capable of it and
| that's absolutely true.
|
| Actually, that is an utter lie, as there isn't any hardware
| and/or software in the world right now that is capable of
| "Fully Self-Driving". Sure, in limited conditions, many of
| these cars can drive on their own and not immediately hit
| the first tree or child they can find. But the current
| track record, especially for Tesla, is not much greater
| than that. And there is no hardware that could drive a car
| in heavy rain or snow. Hell, the sensors we have would just
| not work in some of the real driving conditions that people
| care about.
| adamjcook wrote:
| > I don't think it's dangerous, necessarily, unless you
| ignore people's personal responsibility in the situation as
| well.
|
| Yes, but let us recognize the stark reality and known
| limitations of "the people" in the driving public - as
| Tesla should (and in my opinion did not or does not).
|
| Not suggesting you are, but Tesla cannot hand-wave it.
|
| While their may be an outsized amount of technical persons
| here on Hacker News that are perhaps aware of at least some
| of the technical risks and limitations of Autopilot and/or
| that state of autonomous driving systems in general, it is
| simply unrealistic and a fiction to expect that the
| _broader_ driving public is going to be able to safely
| utilize an opaque, autonomous system with minimal
| safeguards and written instructions - particularly if they
| can be easily defeated.
|
| We are talking here of newly minted drivers in their
| compulsive teen years all the way through older persons who
| may not familiar with technology nearly at all.
|
| Take some time to visit TikTok and YouTube[1] where it is
| replete with fans and other owners are "showing off"
| Autopilot in dangerous and creatively dangerous ways that
| generate clicks and likes, pushing Autopilot to the limit
| and/or otherwise not paying attention to the roadway while
| Autopilot is engaged.
|
| It is difficult for me to fathom that Tesla is not acutely
| aware of these issues given their focus on social media
| viral campaigns.
|
| In fact, when my wife and I test drove a Model X in Chicago
| a few years back, one of the first things that the Tesla
| salesperson did was to encourage my wife to remove her
| hands from the steering wheel in Autopilot mode (which she
| did not). I cannot say for sure if this internal Tesla
| sales practice is alive and well today, but I would
| discount it.
|
| In my view, this is and was always a core part of Tesla's
| sales model to move metal - and, thus, I think that Tesla
| tacitly approves of the social media abuses I noted above
| to draw attention to their vehicles (unless they are
| talking with a regulator or in a court of law). Case in
| point, other automakers are taking the strategy of
| installing in-cabin driver monitoring systems in their
| vehicles and/or limiting the use of autonomous features to
| certain roadways and roadway types which I think is at
| least safer in principle given the unsophistication of the
| driving public.
|
| Tesla could employ the same in their vehicles, but then it
| would take away a key differentiator in their product from
| all others. Tesla knows this, so they resist.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/ja5Lt8rzKGg
| jaybeeayyy wrote:
| >when my wife and I test drove a Model X in Chicago a few
| years back, one of the first things that the Tesla
| salesperson did was to encourage my wife to remove her
| hands from the steering wheel in Autopilot mode
|
| My fiancee was told to do the same thing with her new
| Toyota Corolla when purchasing it with lane assist...not
| that it's totally related but sort of enforces your point
| more that the general public is where the issue really
| shines.
| Piskvorrr wrote:
| Well, even a Ford Model T will not crash immediately if
| you take your hands off the wheel. "Oh wow, must be self-
| driving!!!"
| bakuninsbart wrote:
| Apparently, the dictionaries are in conspiracy with the
| general public, as they also define autopilot as "a device
| that keeps aircraft, spacecraft, and ships moving in a
| particular direction without human involvement". The
| etymology of the word automatic is also very telling.
|
| Generally we ascribe meaning to words by how people use it,
| and I'm not sure I'd call marketers people.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| Is a car now interchangeable with "aircraft, spacecraft,
| or ships"?
| callalex wrote:
| Yes.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Apparently, the dictionaries are in conspiracy with the
| general public, as they also define autopilot as "a
| device that keeps aircraft, spacecraft, and ships moving
| in a particular direction without human involvement".
|
| This is describing cruise control.
| dx87 wrote:
| Cruise control just maintains speed, not direction. It'll
| happily plow you into an obstacle without human
| intervention.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Plowing you into an obstacle is what you get when you
| maintain your existing course and speed without regard
| for what's in front of you. "Forward" is a direction.
|
| And whether you call it cruise control or not, the
| definition still matches a thing the car actually does.
| It has lane keep assist too.
| seppel wrote:
| The thing is: Cruise control maintains the speed without
| human supervision. Lane keep assist does not keep in a
| lane without human supervision (hence it is only assist).
| retrac wrote:
| No, that just keeps the car moving. Not in any particular
| direction.
| bumby wrote:
| The original cruise control developed in the 1950s by
| Chrysler was coincidentally termed "autopilot" by
| marketers
|
| "Meanwhile, in 1958, Chrysler's new Auto-Pilot was of
| course just a cruise control."
|
| https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/history/automotive-
| hist...
| JJMcJ wrote:
| But autopilot is explicitly a term for hands off operation.
|
| In general, in driving, things happen too fast for any
| control assist system to allow hands off driving.
|
| EDIT: Any _existing_ control assist system
|
| And I don't think we are that close, since "self driving
| cars" still seem to be limited to "driving at 25 MPH around
| Mountain View and Sunnyvale where the curbs and streets
| have been pre-mapped to within inches".
| drcross wrote:
| >But autopilot is explicitly a term for hands off
| operation.
|
| I see you've never skippered a boat.
| JJMcJ wrote:
| No, just the common understanding of autopilot for
| aircraft.
|
| I assume, just like with cars, things can happen quickly
| with a boat.
| seppel wrote:
| > No, just the common understanding of autopilot for
| aircraft.
|
| The autopilot for a aircraft does whatever it is supposed
| to do without human supervision. If you turn on keep
| heading, it will keep the heading (within physical
| limitations). I guess it is similar for a boat.
|
| Lane assist, however, requires constant human supervision
| because it is just an assistant. I think this is the
| important difference that needs to be highlighted here.
| JJMcJ wrote:
| I agree, and Tesla's "autopilot" was just lane keeping
| and adaptive cruise control along with a bit of collision
| avoidance.
| LeChuck wrote:
| I have. Lots of them, all over the world. On every ship
| I've worked on the track pilot is used for hands off
| operation. Hell, some guys would do paperwork or work on
| stowage plans during their watch.
| kirillzubovsky wrote:
| I was reading somewhere that a while back Germany classified
| "autopilot" to be at least Level 4, where's in case of
| emergency the car needs to be able to take and maintain control
| for a least X-time duration. Under those rules Tesla does not
| qualify, and neither do other manufacturers. However, if the
| rules are rules, it would be unfair that Tesla gets to
| advertise something that others aren't allowed to.
| ummonk wrote:
| Even "autosteer" is more commonly called "lane centering" by
| the industry. A term that provides much more clarity to the
| user.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| If you use the wayback machine and look at their AutoPilot
| page, the very first thing you see is ... well, here:
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20170201120106/https://www.tesla...
|
| They wanted people to believe that this had more capabilities
| than it really does.
| uniqueid wrote:
| > All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model
| 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability
| at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human
| driver.
|
| My my, that _is_ brazen!
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| Big huge banner:
|
| "Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars"
| jdminhbg wrote:
| It's also almost certainly true. Whether you think LIDAR-
| based systems are the way to go, there's no doubt that full
| self-driving based on cameras is possible given the right
| software. That's what humans are, after all, so it's "just"
| a matter of building the software to drive that hardware.
| bra-ket wrote:
| the "right software" is nowhere to be found though
| jdminhbg wrote:
| They don't claim to have it. I'm just pointing out that
| the claim as written is true.
| dlp211 wrote:
| It's may or may not be, and most likely not. Humans are
| more than just software, they are also hardware. And no,
| the consumer grade cameras included in Tesla vehicles are
| not replicas for eyeballs.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| Apple, HP, etc should take note and sell their laptops as
| "have the hardware needed for full AGI capability."
|
| Chemistry kits with a sample of every element in the
| periodic table should advertise them as "have all the
| materials needed for COVID-19 vaccine."
| frenchy wrote:
| > Chemistry kits with a sample of every element in the
| periodic table should advertise them as "have all the
| materials needed for COVID-19 vaccine.
|
| Not that this invalidates your point at all, but doing
| that literally would actually be extremely expensive and
| difficult for some of the elements.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| It will be worth it. After all, COVID-19 vaccine is
| priceless. /s
| perl4ever wrote:
| Surely the extremely expensive and difficult to obtain
| elements aren't going to be in any vaccine.
| typon wrote:
| Beaches are just unrealized silicon chips
| sgnelson wrote:
| It's just software. How hard can it be? /s
| jdminhbg wrote:
| That's why I put "just" in scare quotes.
| dlp211 wrote:
| This is rich. I was watching a K8S/Puppet video from 2016
| on YouTube today. In that video, the presenter pulls up
| HackerNews and the 6th item on HackerNews at that time was
| exactly this:
|
| All Tesla vehicles now have all the hardware needed for
| full self-driving capability
| Nagyman wrote:
| "have the hardware needed" ... being legalese/marketing
| speak for "the hardware may indeed be capable, but the
| software is not (yet)". So they're gearing people to expect
| the full self-driving capability, _eventually_. Shady to
| say the least.
| fluffything wrote:
| That marketing was not misleading, it was and still is a
| lie. They have upgraded the hardware at least 3 times
| already.
|
| The first time this lie might have been just sheer
| incompetence. But after three upgrades, I can only assume
| that the lie is malicious and negligent.
|
| Musk has been claiming that his "fleet" of 10,000
| robotaxis will arrive next year for a couple of years
| already. I mean, he is going to be right eventually.
|
| But Tesla's competition, e.g., NVIDIA et al., are
| claiming that for full-self driving we'll at least need
| hardware with an order of magnitude more TOPs than what
| the current generation provides, and that we won't see
| that hardware before 2022-2023. They are also not
| promising that this hardware will suffice, only that they
| are pretty sure that it cannot be done without it.
|
| I'm skeptical of Tesla's claims to say the least, but I
| guess we'll see. Statistically speaking, Musk predictions
| about when we are going to see full-self driving have
| been 100% wrong to date.
| [deleted]
| PeterStuer wrote:
| How do you know the hardware is sufficient _before_ you
| achieve the "full self driving" goal?
| dheera wrote:
| > They should have called it "CoPilot"
|
| I agree with this fully, although the reality now is if Tesla
| used this name Ford might sue them.
| the8472 wrote:
| We should actually look at the court's reasoning (which I can't
| find referenced anywhere in the news articles). I doubt it
| singularly revolves around the interpretation of the word
| autopilot.
| KKKKkkkk1 wrote:
| Elon is a master of saying something that's technically
| correct, but sounds like something completely different,
| something that people want to believe and is completely untrue.
| So the car has "full self-driving capability" but is not
| actually self driving. The "basic functionality for L5 will be
| done this year" but not actual self driving [0]. Autopilot
| branding comes from the same strategy.
|
| [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-autonomous/tesla-
| ve...
| DenisM wrote:
| In aviation the auto-pilot is a relatively dumb machine that
| must be supervised, whereas a co-pilot is a human that could be
| trusted with full operations of the aircraft.
|
| I find it rather droll that the common use of the words
| completely inverted the original meaning.
| dlp211 wrote:
| It likely inverted because vehicles don't come with two sets
| of steering instruments and therefore co-pilot/driver means
| something else in the driving world.
| vkou wrote:
| > Tesla goofed from the beginning
|
| It's wasn't a 'whoopsie daisies we goofed up'.
|
| It was a cynical play for market share.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > They should have called it "CoPilot" [rather than
| "AutoPilot"]
|
| Huh but a co-pilot is much more capable than an auto-pilot
| system. An auto-pilot mostly keeps you level, going the right
| speed, and pointing in the right direction, and can do some
| limited landing and things.
|
| That sounds to me exactly like what Tesla's system does?
|
| A co-pilot is a human who can take complete control from you
| for the rest of the whole flight and deal with any emergency or
| unexpected situation. The co-pilot is much more advanced than
| the autopilot.
| tridentlead wrote:
| Its nice to make semantic distinctions, but thats not how
| most of the population (people buying the car) think of it.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| It's the same thing as putting "fat free" on the Twizzlers.
| It's technically true which means they can get away with
| it. Except that that probably kills more people than
| "autopilot" ever will.
| TazeTSchnitzel wrote:
| It's not food companies' fault that the English word
| "fat" has multiple meanings and is the normal word for
| several of them.
| close04 wrote:
| They should simply call it "Driver Assistance" which is
| very appropriate for such systems.
| DenisM wrote:
| How do you know what the population thinks? Have there been
| an polls done?
| tridentlead wrote:
| Because the original parent comment is using an analogy
| to aviation terms, and depending on a more than cursory
| understanding of the limits of an aircraft autopilot. I
| am willing to make a monetary bet most members of the
| population do not understand the precise limitations of
| an aircraft autopilot, though I admit I have not
| conducted a poll to verify this. I also think Tesla
| likely named it this to differentiate it from the
| competitions systems, and in my eyes it is pretty obvious
| what distinction they were aiming for most people to
| make.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I think Tesla probably called it 'autopilot' specifically
| to clarify the limitations - it just sets heading, speed,
| etc.
| catalogia wrote:
| The problem with this line of reasoning is that the general
| public has an inaccurate understanding of what airplane
| autopilots are capable of. The belief that modern airline
| pilots just push a button to turn on the plane then take a
| nap until the plane lands is widespread.
|
| In naming their system after a system the public has a poor
| understanding of, Tesla is being misleading.
| [deleted]
| chrisseaton wrote:
| However good the public think autopilots are, I'm sure they
| don't think they're more capable than a co-pilot!
| FabHK wrote:
| Etymologically though, the co-pilot is pilot along _with_
| you and supports you, while the auto-pilot is a pilot _by
| itself_ , independently (dare I say: autonomously).
|
| "Autopilot" remains a very misleading term in the car
| context.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| No you have it the wrong way around.
|
| A co-pilot is equal to a pilot.
|
| An autopilot automates just some functions of piloting.
| catalogia wrote:
| I agree that 'co-pilot' would also be a very misleading
| name.
|
| I think they should avoid these sort of airplane
| analogies entirely and just describe features as they
| are. E.g. call lane assist "lane assist", call adaptive
| cruise control "adaptive cruise control." These are terms
| that reasonably convey what the systems do, without
| exploiting the public's general ignorance of how
| airplanes work.
| [deleted]
| aaomidi wrote:
| Tesla conveniently used a word where it actually means
| something far simpler than what the general public knows it
| to mean.
|
| Tesla knew this but they did it anyway because $$$.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| You're transposing airplane terminology with automobile
| terminology. In a car, the co-pilot is typically someone that
| sits in the passenger seat and functions only as an
| additional set of eyes. They can't take complete control over
| the vehicle from that spot. Cars, unlike airplanes, don't
| have two sets of full controls.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > You're transposing airplane terminology with automobile
| terminology.
|
| Well yeah... transposing terminology is how an analogy is
| supposed to work. And I didn't pick the analogies - Tesla
| did and then you proposed another flying analogy!
|
| > In a car, the co-pilot is typically someone that sits in
| the passenger seat and functions only as an additional set
| of eyes.
|
| Do you mean a _co-driver_? Like in a rally car? I 've never
| seen that called a 'co-pilot' before.
|
| If you don't want to confuse with aeroplanes, why didn't
| you suggest 'co-driver'?
| arrosenberg wrote:
| This comment seems to pretty much ignore the lingua
| franca of American drivers. Transposing terminology only
| works to the extent that the public actually understands
| how an airplane autopilot functions, which they don't.
| Plenty of people refer to their front seat passenger as a
| co-pilot or navigator, but I've never heard anyone call
| their passenger "co-driver".
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Plenty of people refer to their front seat passenger as
| a co-pilot or navigator
|
| Can you use that in a sentence?
|
| Like 'will you be my co-pilot while I drive to the
| store?' I don't see it to be honest.
| LoSboccacc wrote:
| "All Tesla cars come with Full Self Driving Capability"
|
| they even replaced - hardware to - capability to be even more
| ambiguous.
| cjhopman wrote:
| It is insane that that is allowed. I'm not sure if it is
| more or less insane that there are Tesla fans that would
| defend that.
| rhino369 wrote:
| But autopilot in a plane doesn't require the pilot to take
| over in a split second. Keeping you level, at the right
| speed, in the right direction, etc. is enough to keep the
| plane safe. Pilots have tens of seconds to reorient
| themselves to avert any disaster.
|
| In contrast, Telsa "autopilot" requires constant vigilance
| since you might have to take over without any warning.
| outworlder wrote:
| > But autopilot in a plane doesn't require the pilot to
| take over in a split second.
|
| That's a very broad statement. Autopilots can disengage at
| any time and you are supposed to take control pretty much
| immediately.
| bdonlan wrote:
| Where immediately is generally measured in seconds (with
| the exception of perhaps autoland). Normally the
| autopilot will have the plane trimmed at all times, so
| the plane will continue flying its current course for
| some time without control inputs.
| random314 wrote:
| Like the op said, split second takeover is not required
| in a flight autopilot
| ogre_codes wrote:
| > In contrast, Telsa "autopilot" requires constant
| vigilance since you might have to take over without any
| warning.
|
| Neither version eliminates the need for the pilot/ driver
| to cease situational control. Pilots have absolutely flown
| into the side of mountains while on autopilot. (Ironically
| called "Controlled flight into terrain"). The big
| difference between the two is in an aircraft there is less
| to collide with when the pilot screws up.
|
| The big problem isn't whether the two are actually similar
| or not, the problem is most people assume that autopilot on
| an aircraft does a lot more than what it actually does. In
| most cases, autopilot in an aircraft maintains heading and
| altitude, that's pretty much it.
|
| Adding to all the confusion is the fact that "Autopilot" in
| aircraft can mean a giant pile of different things, but the
| term was originally coined quite a while ago to refer to
| basic altitude/ bearing hold.
| catalogia wrote:
| With a typical aircraft autopilot, the pilot is allowed
| to take their hands off the controls. Tesla's manual
| quite clearly forbids that.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| You are splitting hairs. The problem isn't whether
| someone has their hands on the controls or not, it's the
| fact that the operator isn't paying attention to what's
| going on outside the vehicle.
| detaro wrote:
| It's not splitting hairs if the expected reaction time
| and circumstances are so different. That being very
| unattentive can kill you in both doesn't make the
| differences irrelevant.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| > It's not splitting hairs if the expected reaction time
| and circumstances are so different.
|
| No, the likelihood of incident is vastly lower in the
| air, but the required reaction time is not necessarily
| different and could easily be a lot _lower_ ,
| particularly if you are flying IFR. That's the whole
| point, much like in a car, a pilot must have eyes outside
| the cockpit.
|
| Again, I'm not arguing that Tesla is right here about
| advertising, just that the two technologies are very
| similar in nature. The other big difference is the fact
| that pilots have to go through training and are tested on
| their understanding of the specific technology they
| control. Drivers, never have to be certified or trained
| on any specific vehicle.
|
| If a pilot treats autopilot in a plane the way some
| people treat it in a Tesla, there would be a lot more
| fatalities in air travel, particularly in smaller
| aircraft with older technology.
| catalogia wrote:
| It's not splitting hairs to say Tesla has a level 2
| system at best but Elon Musk wants you to believe level 5
| might be ready by next year.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| No, it isn't. But it doesn't remotely relate to what I
| said either. Aircraft "autopilot" wouldn't be considered
| Level 2 either.
|
| That's the point, there is a vast difference in the
| publics perception of what autopilots do in aircraft
| versus what they actually do.
| outworlder wrote:
| > Tesla goofed from the beginning by calling tech like
| "Autosteer" and "Traffic Assisted Cruise Control" under the
| moniker "Autopilot"
|
| Aviation autopilots can do even less than that and yet they are
| still called "autopilot". Altitude hold? That's autopilot.
|
| Also, "copilots" are generally fully capable of flying the
| aircraft and have the exact same capabilities.
|
| If you are irked about the 'autopilot' moniker, then ditch
| aviation terminology entirely.
| perbu wrote:
| Have you flown on autopilot? It maintains speed, height and
| direction. It doesn't land or take off. Originally it couldn't
| even turn.
| FabHK wrote:
| Sure. And during those hours of straight and level flight you
| can read a book or talk to the cabin crew or have a meal.
| Shouldn't do that in the car (yet).
| Piskvorrr wrote:
| Because what are you going to hit up there, cumulogranite?
| There's a whole industry devoted to "let's keep the planes
| out of each other's way; luckily the sky is huge".
| catalogia wrote:
| Some can land in some conditions. However take off is still
| done by pilots in everything other than a few experimental
| aircraft.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Some can land in some conditions.
|
| So... a bit like a Tesla parking itself in some conditions?
| Piskvorrr wrote:
| Requires total coordination and compliance from both
| stationary and moving parts of the system, and operator
| is supposed to take over immediately, continuing the
| manouevre, at the sign of any trouble?
|
| Yeah. That's almost completely unlike a Tesla parking.
| catalogia wrote:
| Perhaps, but I've already responded to you addressing
| this, in this thread. The public's ignorance must be
| considered; being "technically correct" isn't good enough
| if the "technically correct" statement is being made by
| somebody who has every reason to believe it will be
| misunderstood.
| voqv wrote:
| I hope you really don't think it's a good comparison. The
| level of effort and safety engineering that went into ILS
| Cat IIIb and Autoland is above and beyond what any
| automotive company is doing. Autoland is mandatory in
| certain conditions.
| elandrum wrote:
| It sure does get them a lot of attention though! My Jeep
| Cherokee has lane assist, adaptive cruise control, auto-
| parking, and crash detection (emergency braking) but they don't
| get all this press about it.
| modeless wrote:
| But it doesn't automatically change lanes to follow routes or
| pass slow traffic. It doesn't take exits or navigate
| interchanges. It doesn't stop for stoplights. You can't drive
| it around a parking lot from your phone with nobody in the
| driver's seat.
|
| What Autopilot offers is not "Full Self Driving", but don't
| pretend like the features on your Jeep are equivalent.
| dlp211 wrote:
| Because the execs at Jeep know the limitations of their
| platform, Tesla on the other hand just loves to roll the
| dice.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| And which automaker has the largest market cap in the
| world currently? Not Jeep.
| dlp211 wrote:
| And, so what?
| patd wrote:
| Maybe because it's not the same ? I don't own a Jeep but Lane
| assist typically means warning the user if you drive over the
| line. Tesla steers by itself and more.
|
| Adaptive Cruise Control typically works only above a given
| speed. Tesla's does work at low speed too.
|
| At least Tesla cars seem to do more than the German cars I
| have driven before.
| callalex wrote:
| No that is lane departure warning. Lane assist, which
| almost every major manufacturer now offers, does the
| steering to keep you in your lane, and combines with
| adaptive cruise control to follow the car in front of you
| at a safe distance. This is almost universally available,
| and not specific to Tesla at all.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| But is Lane Assist equivalent to Autosteer? I own a Model
| 3, which also has Lane Assist as a separate feature. I'd
| say it's a gentle nudge, while Autosteer has full control
| of the steering wheel (with a fairly high resistance).
| elandrum wrote:
| Ah sorry, I was conflating two technologies (which are
| basically the same in my model). "Available LaneSense(r)
| Lane Departure Warning with Lane Keep Assist alerts you
| with visual and audible warnings during unintentional lane
| drifts and corrects your vehicle back into its lane."
|
| I get a visual (and optional audio -- which I disabled)
| warning and a little steering wheel resistance to bring it
| back into the middle of the lane.
|
| While I'm not sure what the minimum speed for adaptive
| cruise control is, but I use it in freeway stop & go
| traffic often.
| whitexn--g28h wrote:
| There is precedent for using the word auto-pilot[1], even in a
| plane the pilots are required to pay attention. It's only the
| deceptive claims of the system's ability that should be banned.
|
| 1. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/history/automotive-
| hist...
| stetrain wrote:
| Actually I think the name "Autopilot" is the least troublesome
| part of the marketing.
|
| Other car makers call their systems CoPilot, ProPilot,
| SuperCruise, whatever and I think the name matters less than
| the communication and details of using the system.
|
| The main Autopilot marketing page shows a video of a Tesla
| driving itself, says the Driver is there for legal purposes
| only, and provides no other disclaimers about the limitations,
| or that the demonstration is of internal test software and not
| reproducible with consumer vehicles.
|
| https://www.tesla.com/autopilot
|
| Actually using the car, the system is fairly clear about the
| need to pay attention and keep your hands on the wheel, but it
| allows you to engage Autosteer in areas the manual says you
| should not (ie city streets) and does not clearly indicate what
| areas are good or not good for using Autosteer. SuperCruise
| only works on specifically listed highway segments, which
| limits its usefulness but also prevents these issues.
|
| Also Tesla relies on the steering wheel torque sensor to
| determine driver presence. This leads to false negatives (my
| hands are on the wheel but not providing a turning force so the
| car gives an alert) and is easily bypassed (there are third
| party products that clip on to the steering wheel and provide
| enough weight to fool the system).
|
| Competing systems (SuperCruise, BMW) use driver monitor cameras
| or capacitive wheel sensors to provide a better indication of
| driver attentiveness.
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| > The main Autopilot marketing page shows a video of a Tesla
| driving itself, says the Driver is there for legal purposes
| only
|
| This alone feels like lawsuit-bait.
|
| I'm surprised it took this long for the courts to get
| involved.
| Animats wrote:
| _Tesla's Chief Executive Elon Musk said this month the
| electric car manufacturer was close to making its cars
| capable of automated driving without any need for driver
| input, so-called Level 5 autonomy._
|
| Yeah, right. Tesla has only Level 2 self-driving. They've
| never demonstrated Level 3 outside a video of a demo in
| Palo Alto. They wouldn't even let the press take a ride.
| Google/Waymo has hundreds of self-driving vehicles running
| around in test. Go to Mountain View and you'll probably see
| some. If Tesla had anything that really worked, they'd have
| enough test vehicles running around that it would be
| visible to the industry.
|
| Waymo One is offering driverless rides in Phoenix AZ.
| Interestingly, they are now offering only autonomous rides
| - the "safety driver" is out, to prevent epidemic spread.
| saddlerustle wrote:
| Waymo is not currently offering any rides. Their service
| has been suspended for riders since March.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Exactly. He said this in 2014. 2016. 2018. Even at the
| end of 2019:
|
| > "You'll be able to FSD, coast to coast, by the end of
| this year".
|
| Meanwhile Teslas are still having a multitude of
| autopilot accidents that, had a human been paying
| attention (their fault, I understand), would not have
| happened - plowing at speed into fire engines with
| emergency lighting on, plowing into overturned semi
| trailers blocking multiple freeway lanes, aiming at
| barriers.
| tcoff91 wrote:
| wait... you can seriously get a fully autonomous taxi in
| Phoenix right now with no safety driver? That is wild!
| has anyone documented this on video?
| saddlerustle wrote:
| _technically_ , but only a handful (<5) of vehicles are
| run without a safety driver, each has a dedicated remote
| operator and a follower vehicle, and the area covered is
| much smaller than their regular operation (a small area
| in the suburbs).
| zzzzzzzza wrote:
| yes, in a limited geographic area
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__EoOvVkEMo
| PCChris wrote:
| They do say on the same page you linked that "Current
| Autopilot features require active driver supervision and do
| not make the vehicle autonomous."
| amznthrwaway wrote:
| They've also been promising full autonomy for five years
| straight. The wording of "Current autopilot features" is
| intended to help deceive the public into thinking that full
| autonomy is coming next year.
| LoSboccacc wrote:
| > next year
|
| this year https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/
| 07/09/elon-mu...
| enahs-sf wrote:
| It would be a huge improvement (and a weight off my shoulders
| as a driver) if the car could show you the confidence level
| it has in the current road situation. Eg. I took a tesla
| through the snow, and I wouldn't trust autopilot with my life
| in that situation, but when driving on 80 towards tahoe
| during the summer, it's a godsend.
| themantra514 wrote:
| It's about stonk.
|
| Elon became a master at low key commenting on features "soon to
| be released" and on the "verge of" but those comments are non
| binding. You know what those comments do? They become nudges
| for stonk buyers who want to get in on the deal early before
| the features are released & the stonk price goes higher. Yeah,
| Elon knows how to make potential investors go crazy with the
| "buy low and sell high" fomo; Just read his Twitter feed filled
| with carrots on the proverbial stick. Oh Elon, you cheeky,
| cheeky bastard :)
|
| TTYl everybody, gotta go catch my robo taxi! _opens Waymo on
| smartphone_
|
| PS: Never forget, Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning were the
| original Tesla visionaries, Elon pretty much just bought his
| way into the vision...and pushed out Martin Eberhard.
| OliverJones wrote:
| I too have a Tesla vehicle, and I too agree with this German
| regulator's decision. You CAN'T climb from the driver's seat to
| the back seat and take a nap while the car is running. And
| that's because lane holding and adaptive cruise control are not
| reliable enough.
|
| "Autopilot" is deceptive. In aviation, it's hard to engage an
| autopilot until you have a desired altitude, heading, and
| speed. And that's in the sky, far from guard rails and
| hopefully far from other traffic.
|
| Oh, and by the way, before you do any of that you have to go to
| school, pass a rigorous practical test, get your hands on an
| airplane with autopilot, put fuel in it, get cleared for taxi,
| takeoff, climbout and cruise. There are some hurdles to jump
| over.
|
| I wish they had used some other word to brand this stuff.
|
| And, they've been saying "Level 5 this year" for a few years
| now. This is the kind of hype that got us the "AI Winter" back
| in the 1970s. Let's not go there again.
| NeutronStar wrote:
| The issue is one of definition. I don't know why people
| associate autopilot with a definition that isn't autopilot.
|
| An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an
| aircraft, marine craft or spacecraft without requiring constant
| manual control by a human operator. Autopilot does not replace
| human operators. Instead, autopilot assists the operator's
| control of the vehicle, allowing the operator to focus on
| broader aspects of operations (for example, monitoring the
| trajectory, weather and on-board systems) [0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot
| kalenx wrote:
| The "why" is not really relevant here, the general perception
| is. The fact is, if you say "autopilot" and "self driving
| capabilities" to most people, they will infer that the car
| does not need a driver to be operated safely, which is
| definitely not the case.
| Domenic_S wrote:
| How do you know what most people think? Could this be a
| case where the small minority of people are the loudest?
| kalenx wrote:
| Well, if an airplane/boat pilot formation is required to
| get the "right" definition of the word autopilot, there
| is a problem, IMHO.
| rzzzt wrote:
| The answer is "Knight Rider".
| NeutronStar wrote:
| So you take your definitions from movies now?
| zmk_ wrote:
| Because it is being sold to customers in a different context.
| Autopilot for planes does not need to take into account other
| planes (flight paths are separated) to the same degree as
| cars do (where other "obstacles" constantly zip next to you).
| NeutronStar wrote:
| So business should be forced to put the definition of words
| they use as source now?
| darkerside wrote:
| What I've realized is that Elon Musk simply puts less value on
| individual human lives than most others do. I don't mean that
| quite as harshly as it comes off, but it does seem that Elon
| likely believes the world would be a better place if all of the
| "dumbest" people were allowed to get themselves killed,
| allowing the rest of the human race to move forward. He may
| have a point, but I can't go down that path with him.
| mikelyons wrote:
| This is how evolution works though, he described it himself.
| "There will be death, there will be some outcry, and
| [regulation will step in to move the evolution in the direction
| of absolute Good] ..."
| andrepd wrote:
| I didn't even realise that was all that the touted "Tesla
| Autopilot" did, so much was the hype around the internet. My
| 20k car does the same then (lane keeping + auto emergency
| braking).
| simion314 wrote:
| I am wondering if a regular person when is thinking about
| autopilot term in a car is thinking at movies and not at
| aircrafts. In SciFi/spy movies autopilot means the ship or car is
| piloting itself and you can do something else.
| ilikehurdles wrote:
| Sure, they probably do. But more problematic is what does an
| average person think when they read "Full Self-Driving
| Capability" and "Includes the Full Self Driving Computer"?
| simion314 wrote:
| Yeah, but the "autopilot" claim will spawn a large numbers of
| fanboys with dictionaries and definition trying to defend
| Tesla's marketing department , the terms you mentioned will
| mostly get the mention of some text message you have to click
| OK on when you start using the car.
| antpls wrote:
| That's hypocrisy from the German court. This is 100% a push from
| German car industry lobby. Note that the case wasn't started from
| consumer complaints, it was instead started by an industrial
| group.
|
| I bet _all_ Tesla buyers are aware about what they are actually
| buying. They can return the car and get a refund if they are not
| pleased with it.
|
| This ban is bullshit considering that many ads in many industries
| are deceptive, including healthcare. Tesla is punished only
| because it is a direct competitor of German cars.
| croes wrote:
| Some of the tesla car accidents prove the opposite.
| richardrk wrote:
| Exactly! Here is something to support that:
| https://www.tesladeaths.com/
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| Deceptive healthcare ads aren't allowed in Europe either.
| Consumer protection standards are much higher.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Heck, in the UK if a medicine is prescription-only you're not
| allowed to advertise it _at all_. This is a great
| improvement, frankly.
| DanBC wrote:
| > you're not allowed to advertise it at all.
|
| You're not allowed to advertise it to the general public.
| You can still advertise it to prescribers and suppliers.
|
| https://www.gov.uk/guidance/advertise-your-medicines
|
| > You can't advertise prescription-only medicines (POMs) to
| the general public but you can promote them to healthcare
| professionals and others who can prescribe or supply the
| product.
| antpls wrote:
| They are not allowed, but it doesn't stop deceptive ads. Here
| is an example in French pharmacy :
| https://www.pourquoidocteur.fr/Articles/Question-d-
| actu/3079...
|
| "Probiotic" term has been banned on ads and packages. Those
| products are now sold as "Ultrabiotic" or other variants.
| Same product, same impact on consumer, but legal.
| notRobot wrote:
| > The Munich court agreed with the industry body's assessment and
| banned Tesla Germany from including "full potential for
| autonomous driving" and "Autopilot inclusive" in its German
| advertising materials.
|
| Fully autonomous driving won't be here for _at least_ half a
| decade so this judgement makes complete sense. Tesla was engaged
| in flase advertising.
| vmception wrote:
| any idea if these materials were in German or in English?
| Leherenn wrote:
| It was in German. Very few countries run adverts in languages
| different from the local ones, especially in the big European
| countries.
| [deleted]
| gardaani wrote:
| Only five days ago Elon Musk claimed that _" we will have the
| basic functionality for level five autonomy complete this
| year."_ (yeah..!)
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53349313
| croes wrote:
| Didn't he claim the same last year and the year before?
| Vysero wrote:
| Really? You're guna bet against Elon Musk? You really think
| that's wise? XD
| Obi_Juan_Kenobi wrote:
| When it comes to timeline, it's very wise.
| Dahoon wrote:
| Yes and I would already have won before posting this
| reply. He said it would be here by now and then moved the
| timeline when it wasn't and he's done so more than once.
| u10 wrote:
| Betting against Elon is a fools errand not because he's
| right, but because he's built a personality cult around
| himself.
| mtgp1000 wrote:
| Counterpoint: Elon Musk is the only (publicly visible)
| CEO who is seriously talking about going to Mars and
| direct interfacing between machines and humans _and
| making tangible steps_ toward these futuristic goals.
|
| His rockets are [mostly] not exploding, his cars are
| selling to [mostly] good reviews, and neuralink seems to
| be doing something too.
|
| Perhaps his cult of personality is deserved because
| although he (along with basically the entire industry)
| overpromised on self driving timelines, nonetheless he
| does seem to be one of the few people with the practical
| vision to take us into a techno future.
|
| Consider that this guy went from a payment processing app
| to a bonafide private rocket company and is democratizing
| space flight (and satellite internet!) in what, about a
| decade?
|
| People love to hate the guy, I believe because he has
| brash and harbors some unpopular (callous but rational)
| opinions. Regardless, the respect that he gets from his
| fanboys is arguably in deserved, if you're the type to
| find inspiration in great people.
| mcnamaratw wrote:
| I don't know. Many people who "hate" the guy tend to
| freely acknowledge his very real accomplishments.
| bb611 wrote:
| "markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and
| I can remain solvent."
|
| TSLA proves this in spades, right now the stock is
| trading at more than double what Elon said was
| "overvalued" 10 weeks ago.
| krick wrote:
| But the bubble must collapse eventually, right? Enron was
| "the most innovative company" for 6 years in a row too.
| mcnamaratw wrote:
| It does. But there's not necessarily any safe way to
| profit on it. Shorting can force you out at the high.
| Puts expire.
| croes wrote:
| Seems the odds would be in my favor
| https://elonmusk.today/
| woah wrote:
| I'm no fan of Elon Musk's excesses, but the site you
| linked seems to feel that it is immoral to even speak of
| loans?
| krick wrote:
| > "SEC, three letter acronym, middle word is Elon's"
|
| I seriously cannot understand how it is he gets away with
| all of his gimmicks. I mean, insulting federal government
| agencies is not a crime, but so many of things he does
| seem to be awfully close to a crime these agencies are
| supposed to prosecute for.
|
| P.S.
|
| Hmm... How comes his brilliant TSLA price evaluation of 2
| months ago isn't cited? If anything, this should have
| been captured for future generations.
| azernik wrote:
| When he gives timelines? ABSOLUTELY it's wise.
|
| SpaceX watchers call it "Elon Time". When Gwynne Shotwell
| gives you a time estimate, you can take it seriously
| (subject to regular engineering uncertainty). When Elon
| Musk gives you a time estimate, laugh it off and say
| "that's adorable" and recognize that it's mostly intended
| to keep investors happy and to put pressure on his
| engineers.
| cma wrote:
| Don't forget the LA to New York drive by 2017 with no
| interventions, on completely different less powerful
| hardware.
| [deleted]
| ummonk wrote:
| _" I remain confident that we will have the basic
| functionality for level five autonomy complete this year.
| "There are no fundamental challenges remaining. "There are
| many small problems. "And then there's the challenge of
| solving all those small problems and putting the whole system
| together." Real-world testing was needed to uncover what
| would be a "long tail" of problems, he added."_
|
| This is so ridiculous. Of course the basic functionality is
| easy. The whole point of having intelligent drivers is
| dealing with the edge cases.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Even at level 5 (full autonomy with no input needed), when it
| fails, they'll still blame the driver.
| ken47 wrote:
| It's unsurprising that Germany isn't as tolerant of "growth hack"
| advertising as the US. Many Tesla owners are smart enough to
| realize that their cars can't actually drive themselves. But
| those few who buy into the marketing and ignore the fine print
| pose a risk to themselves and the drivers around them.
| richardrk wrote:
| Good. This kind of advertising is misleading and was not only
| posing a risk for individuals but also for the sector of
| autonomous driving as a whole. I always feared that one more
| Tesla autopilot death might cause the public to generally
| distrust any company working in the field.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I think it's poor for "autopilot." That word has a long history.
| It really is the best existing word to use.
|
| But a fair ruling for "autonomous." And I think the concerns HN
| people have with "autopilot" are in part due to the fact that the
| terms have not been properly contrasted by Tesla. Being more
| careful with "autonomous" and "self-driving" would help a lot
| with the confusion with the word "autopilot."
| nolok wrote:
| > That word has a long history. It really is the best existing
| word to use.
|
| Yeah except it doesn't seem to mean what you think it means
|
| > equipment on an aircraft or ship to make it continue to
| travel in the correct direction by itself without needing a
| person to control it
|
| Whenever a crash happened where the car went straight into a
| static thing, or failed to see splitting lanes and crashed in
| the wall, Tesla clearly clarified that their system was
| "needing a person to control it" at all time.
|
| So no, Tesla driving help are not an autopilot, they're
| piloting help or copilot or whatever variant of that you want.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Tesla's not only calling their stuff "autopilot", but also
| "full self driving", which is probably the wrong way to
| describe their current implementation.
|
| Its a bit annoying to see people so fixated on the word
| "autopilot" when its clear that "full self driving" is complete
| and utter vaporware, a $5000 lie sold by the company.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| A lie requires the company to believe it is not true and yet
| say it anyway. Elon is pretty delusional (at least that he
| often has crazily optimistic ideas about what is and is not
| feasible); he's also paranoid about AI becoming self-aware
| and destroying humanity; it's reasonable to suggest that Elon
| believed his own projection, here.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > it's reasonable to suggest that Elon believed his own
| projection
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_V7ZpkJIM
|
| https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8377461/Sho
| c...
|
| Etc. etc.
|
| This sort of stuff has been going on since 2016, or maybe
| earlier. I've at least been aware of it for the last 4
| years.
|
| Mr. Musk is aware of these repeated failures, and yet
| continues to push "full self driving" as a name to the car
| features.
| libertine wrote:
| When are we going to address the elephant in the room?
|
| Advertising regulators aren't able to regulate, or arre taking
| too long to regulate, and we're leaving this to platforms.
|
| When it should be done by a regulator, and fines should be
| applied to both the advertiser and the media owner - BECAUSE YES,
| media owners/platforms have the responsibility and should abide
| by law. I'm looking at Google/Facebook.
|
| If platforms can't do it, too bad on them, pay up.
|
| False advertising is alive and well, and it's encouraged. People
| are being defrauded and we're whistling.
| FriendlyNormie wrote:
| The bigger elephant in the room is that we should have no
| sympathy for the retards who fall for false advertising and
| just let them die off from autopilot disasters so that only
| people who are naturally immune to such deception stay alive to
| influence the culture and pass on their genes. Unfortunately
| "all lives matter" people like you will never accept this.
| rho4 wrote:
| I think / hope that Elon Musk wanted everyone to be crystal clear
| about the end goal from the outset. Go on public record about the
| ambition in a way that will push himself and his employees. Use
| language to drive vision and outcome.
| pbasista wrote:
| I agree that presenting a vision and facing it with reality of
| what is currently possible is great because it may motivate
| people to try to achieve something better than they would
| normally think of.
|
| But misrepresenting the reality as if it already was reflecting
| the vision, when in fact it is not, bears in my opinion many
| signs of fraud.
|
| For example, consider someone who has a "vision of wine" and
| decides to sell bottles of grape juice which are supposed to
| represent that vision. They can have honest intention to fill
| those bottles with wine at some point in time. But as far as
| they in fact sell the grape juice, I think that it is
| reasonable to require them to clearly present it as such.
| itchyjunk wrote:
| Do regulators have an idea of what test a car needs to pass to be
| able to claim certain things? It there were levels of tests and
| passing each gave you better rating, that might give everyone an
| idea of there the system is. But most of the talks about this
| type of stuff seems to be gut feeling rating. Someone will say
| they think some car/software is good, other's will say it's no
| where close and the conversation ends there.
|
| It is also possible that updates can make software worse than it
| was before right? Say a software does pass some test. But how do
| you know it's still as good or better after some update?
|
| Is the problem we know for sure if has specific issues or it is
| more that we have no idea where it might fail while randomly
| driving? Are all this problems considered solvable in short term?
| justapassenger wrote:
| > Do regulators have an idea of what test a car needs to pass
| to be able to claim certain things?
|
| What "regulators"? There's a lot of different regulatory bodies
| in different countries and almost none of them has any detailed
| rules about self-driving-like systems.
|
| Constant claims about "regulators" is Tesla's smoke and mirrors
| - it's another part of their deceiving marketing. For an
| outsider, just reading headlines, they make you think that tech
| is almost ready, "pending regulatory approval".
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >Do regulators have an idea of what test a car needs to pass to
| be able to claim certain things? It there were levels of tests
| and passing each gave you better rating, that might give
| everyone an idea of there the system is.
|
| The 'five levels' of autonomy are fairly well established by
| now. Full autonomy generally is defined as driving capability
| that does not involve human attention, that is to say it is
| what the name suggests, the vehicle drives itself, you could
| ship it to the consumer without a steering wheel.
| voqv wrote:
| Likely can't ship. The Vienna Convention on Road Traffic
| prohibits fully driverless cars [1], I assume the US has
| something similar. Cruise is still waiting for their waiver
| to have cars without a steering wheel and that's not even for
| consumers.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Road_T
| raf...
| bearjaws wrote:
| Here in the states, its at the state level what is allowed.
|
| We have autonomous vehicle testing in pretty much any state
| that allows it.
| stetrain wrote:
| As far as I know there are no standardized tests for how well
| these systems work.
|
| Euro NCAP has recently started doing tests on autonomous
| emergency braking systems, testing both stopping for objects
| and pedestrians. But that doesn't extend to general adaptive
| cruise control and lane steering systems.
|
| And yes, software updates can and have made Autopilot behavior
| worse in some cases.
| elliekelly wrote:
| I think the difference you're getting at has a lot to do with
| the approach of US vs European regulators. The US is far more
| "check the box" focused whereas Europe tends to look to the
| spirit of compliance and the underlying goals of the
| regulation(s).
| mindfulplay wrote:
| Great. I hope they bring charges against Tesla for causing deaths
| that were completely avoidable.
|
| In fact we keep talking about AI ethics and so on. But we seem to
| have missed this very basic key ethical point: when Silicon
| Valley VC funded madness via AI/ML crap is pushed at breakneck
| speeds via these metal torpedoes, who is taking accountability?
|
| It's really amazing that Elon is worried about AI overlords when
| a 'simple' autopilot is not engineered to ethical standards.
| (Same goes for people like Andrej Karpathy and co who should take
| the blame and publicly apologize/resign).
|
| Shameful.
|
| Glad Germany is ahead of the curve.
| mleland wrote:
| Out of curiosity, what part of the driving AI of tesla would
| you say is currently not lining up with ethical standards?
| mindfulplay wrote:
| The fact that they cannot disambiguate between a white truck
| and the sky color that killed an innocent driver is a
| starting point.
|
| I realize the drivers probably should be paying attention
| etc: but when Tesla falsely advertises (or worse by the
| toddler antics of Elon, portrays the optics of L5
| automation); and drivers believe such advertisements then of
| course they wouldn't know that the car is much worse than
| promised.
| kahlonel wrote:
| This is good, even though it could be a possible result of
| VW/BMW/Mercedes lobbying efforts. Human life safety is the top
| priority in any industry in Germany. Regulations are keeping
| Germany a little behind in the innovation race but, at the end,
| it is all worth it if people are not dying everyday because of
| failed tech.
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| Good. These statements are lies. The company should face
| punishment in the US for saying that full self-driving is blocked
| by "regulatory approval" when they're still an unknown number of
| years away from even being able to demo something they plan to
| ship.
|
| They still don't know if full self-driving is even possible at
| the required level of reliability with their current hardware
| suite. They could well be wrong and sitting on a scandal that
| will eclipse Theranos.
| tenuousemphasis wrote:
| Which statements? This is what they say when you select the
| full self driving option when ordering a car:
|
| >The currently enabled features require active driver
| supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The
| activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving
| reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by
| billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory
| approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these
| self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously
| upgraded through over-the-air software updates.
| gibolt wrote:
| When it gets there, regulatory approval will absolutely be a
| bottleneck to deployment. They don't say it is a current
| blocker.
|
| And it won't come close to Theranos. Tesla makes real products
| that are class-leading. Even if Tesla can't reach level 5, it
| will be damn close and make driving 10-100x safer than just a
| human.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Oh oh I get it, so once the cart is delivered they can go
| about looking for a horse to drive it.
| Silhouette wrote:
| _And it won 't come close to Theranos. Tesla makes real
| products that are class-leading._
|
| Class-leading in what sense(s)?
|
| _Even if Tesla can 't reach level 5, it will be damn close_
|
| But that's the problem with self-driving cars. _Damn close_
| isn 't good enough. A miss is as good as a mile.
|
| The problem with the self-driving/automation scale is that
| anything around levels 2-4 probably shouldn't be allowed on
| public roads, at least not yet.
|
| Basic driver aids, where the driver is always fully engaged
| but the system can help to avoid mistakes, are proven to
| improve safety. This is what you get at level 1, and such
| technologies are already widespread in the industry.
|
| If we can ever make a fully autonomous vehicle that can
| genuinely cope with any driving conditions, so you don't need
| any driver or controls in the vehicle any more, then
| obviously this has the potential to beat human drivers. This
| is level 5. But we don't know how to do this yet, and I have
| seen absolutely no evidence so far that anyone will know how
| to do it any time soon either.
|
| In between, we have several variations where a human driver
| is required for some of the monitoring and control of the
| vehicle but not all. This has some horrible safety
| implications, particularly around the transitions between
| human- and vehicle-controlled modes of operation, and around
| creating a false sense of security for the human driver. The
| legal small print will probably say that they must remain
| fully alert and able to take over immediately at any time,
| but whether it is within human capability to actually do that
| effectively is an entirely different question.
|
| _and make driving 10-100x safer than just a human._
|
| I've been driving for more than 25 years, and racked up
| hundreds of thousands of miles behind the wheel. I've never
| caused an accident, as far as I'm aware. I've never had a
| ticket. I try to be courteous to my fellow road users and
| give a comfortable ride to any passengers I have with me.
| What, in your opinion, would driving 10-100x safer than mine
| look like?
|
| Humans certainly aren't perfect drivers and we have plenty of
| variation in ability. Things can go wrong, and I'm sure we'd
| all be happy to see fewer tragedies on our roads. But given
| the vast amounts of travel we undertake and how many of us do
| drive, autonomous vehicles will need an extremely good record
| -- far better than they have so far -- to justify the sort of
| claim you're making here.
| ummonk wrote:
| Level 5 isn't the only safe level. Level 4 is safe too -
| e.g. a car that is fully capable of driving itself without
| human monitoring in slow stop and go traffic on a highway.
|
| Levels 2 and 3 are the danger zone (and it worries me that
| car systems have gone ahead from level 1 to level 2, as
| having the human steer ensures driver attentiveness which
| is harder to maintain when the car does lane centering for
| you).
| Silhouette wrote:
| _Level 5 isn 't the only safe level. Level 4 is safe too_
|
| I agree that, by definition, this is necessarily true.
|
| The catch I see is that the same definition is predicated
| on the vehicle being able to safely end the journey
| before entering any unsupported situation, without
| requiring any driver interaction. I'm not aware that we
| have any known strategy for solving that problem in the
| general case that would not achieve level 5 anyway.
|
| I acknowledge that in specific situations like
| geofencing, where a vehicle does effectively operate at
| level 5 but only under predetermined conditions, that
| would be level 4 according to the scale. However, it's
| the ability to operate fully autonomously, albeit within
| those boundaries, that makes the vehicle safe in this
| scenario.
|
| So, what happens if external conditions (for example,
| directions by a police officer, or some sort of road
| accident or severe weather) mean that the vehicle cannot
| safely remain within the area where it can operate
| autonomously? Unlike a vehicle with a human driver, it
| cannot adapt and safely leave that area either.
|
| In short, unless perhaps we're also going to have a new
| set of rules and possibly some separated infrastructure
| for use with level 4 vehicles, I'm not sure they can ever
| fully match the safety of a human driver without
| necessarily reaching level 5.
| perl4ever wrote:
| >But that's the problem with self-driving cars. Damn close
| isn't good enough. A miss is as good as a mile
|
| Maybe close _is_ good enough. The problem as I see it that
| people usually don 't seem to be focused on is that it's
| impossible for humans to monitor the situation while doing
| other stuff. You can only do that when you're far away from
| other things like in a plane or on a boat.
|
| How can we simultaneously believe it's possible to
| instantly engage with driving _and_ that people can 't be
| trusted to text or make phone calls while driving?
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| Sure, but to even mention it now is disingenuous because
| they're not even close to having a solution that their own
| engineering department would be willing to ship.
|
| You and I have no idea whether it's possible to get close to
| level 5 with their currently shipping hardware. Neither do
| they. And this stuff about being 10-100x safer than a human
| is pure fantasy right now. The industry is incredibly far
| away from that and there's no evidence to suggest Tesla is
| years ahead of other teams working on the problem.
| gibolt wrote:
| 10x is within striking distance. Search for Autopilot
| reporting for the evidence. While it is biased towards
| highway miles, all the safety features augment the human
| driver. This will only get better with time.
|
| Shipping is different from functional. You don't know what
| their engineering department thinks. Unless you are an
| insider, it is hard to guess the timeline, trajectory, or
| confidence levels.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _Unless you are an insider, it is hard to guess the
| timeline, trajectory, or confidence levels._
|
| You realize that as a public company who is _selling_
| this product, they are obligated to spell this out to
| consumers and shareholders, right? The entire point is
| for it to be unambiguous.
| Piskvorrr wrote:
| Yet you are confident of that "10x" statistic. Therefore:
| are you a) leaking inside data, or b) pulling numbers out
| of thin air?
| jowday wrote:
| >When it gets there, regulatory approval will absolutely be a
| bottleneck to deployment. They don't say it is a current
| blocker.
|
| Elon regularly states that the chief blocker for Tesla is
| regulatory approval. Meanwhile Teslas still drive straight
| into overturned trucks.
| jedberg wrote:
| > Meanwhile Teslas still drive straight into overturned
| trucks.
|
| To be fair, so do people.
| Piskvorrr wrote:
| And people driving into things is considered to be a
| problem, not an insignificant quirk that's almost
| unworthy of mention.
| FriendlyNormie wrote:
| 10-100x safer? Can Teslas even see in 3D like humans can?
| Stereoscopic vision is one of the most important parts of
| driving, otherwise you're just guessing how close things are.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| This is an absolute abuse of language. Can I say that my
| backyard nuclear fusion reactors are held back by regulatory
| approval? Surely when I finally get around to building a
| working one, I will have to jump through those pesky hoops.
| thrwyoilarticle wrote:
| So then a Covid vaccine is also blocked by regulatory
| approval. I look forward to teaching my project manager this
| new definition.
| gibolt wrote:
| Yes, exactly. Quite a few possibilities are being tested,
| as in they exist (maybe). It is quite literally being
| blocked by regulatory approval, with the testing for
| validity and safety being the approval process.
| Piskvorrr wrote:
| Nope. They're being tested for validity, meaning that
| their existence _as a treatment_ is under test. If it
| turns out they don't have an effect, will you say "we did
| have a cure for a moment: leeches; but it was rejected by
| the regulatory process, therefore bad bureaucrats for
| showing that it didn't work"?
|
| Of course not, that doesn't make sense...if your goal is
| a cure. (If you're peddling hope, or just looking to make
| money off quack medicine, OTOH...)
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| ping_pong wrote:
| His remarks talking about how Level 5 is fundamentally solved
| should be investigated by the FTC. I think he is purposefully and
| fraudulently saying that self-driving will be available to get
| more people to pay the $8000 for the self-driving software
| "before it goes up". They should make sure his statements are
| actually true otherwise he would be fined severely because to me,
| self-driving is decades away still.
| Traster wrote:
| Never mind his $8000 self-driving packages, Tesla's share price
| is where the action is.
| aiisahik wrote:
| To all those who harp on Tesla's statements being false - you
| completely missed the point: full use of the Streisand Effect for
| free advertising.
| kilotaras wrote:
| I believe that Tesla would prefer no advertising to "German
| court declared our claims about car capabilities a lie."
| ilikehurdles wrote:
| If anything this clarifies to people who thought that teslas
| could self-drive that this is incorrect and that their ads are
| deceptive. Tesla is pretty well known now so it's not exactly a
| positive look. Someone who planned to buy a Tesla based on its
| marketing might now consider one of the other EVs on the
| horizon.
| refurb wrote:
| ??
|
| I don't recall Tesla trying to silence talk about autonomous
| driving.
|
| I mean, that's the definition of Streisand Effect.
| dlivingston wrote:
| While the average non-Tesla owner might be confused on phrases
| like "autopilot", any Tesla owner is very aware of its
| capabilities and shortcomings.
|
| When you first purchase your Tesla and are beginning the setup
| process, you're presented with multiple warning screens like
| this:
| https://boygeniusreport.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/autostee...
|
| That's an old image: I couldn't find the current warning screen
| on Google Images, but it's even more stark and serious about the
| driver's role w.r.t. autopilot.
| ummonk wrote:
| Why do they call it "auto steer"? It's a much more misleading
| term than "lane centering".
| monkeyfacebag wrote:
| Aren't the ads largely targeted to non-owners? Even if I agreed
| with your point, I just don't see how it's relevant.
| dlivingston wrote:
| I'm actually confused by the phrase "ads", because my
| understanding is that Tesla has an advertising budget of $0.
| I assume they're referring to marketing materials (pamphlets,
| websites, etc).
| Slartie wrote:
| But that stuff is particularly relevant for non-owners as
| well and thus must be judged primarily through the eyes of
| non-owners. It doesn't matter whether Tesla pays anyone for
| screen time or whatever to get their message to receptive
| eyeballs - these eyeballs are those of non-owners which
| Tesla wants to convert to Tesla owners, that's the point.
|
| The ban in question relates to any kind of marketing
| material, whether it is on Tesla's website or part of
| advertisement billboards.
| fluffything wrote:
| The law is against fraudulent advertisement.
|
| The channel used to perform the advertisement and how
| expensive that channel is are completely irrelevant.
|
| For example, if Tesla claims in their website that their
| cars can drive themselves and they can't, that's false
| advertising and illegal in Germany. If Tesla organizes a
| concert in some city somewhere, and the singer states that
| Tesla's cars can drive themselves and they can't, that's
| false advertisement.
|
| If Tesla distributes stickers to their car owners that
| claim that Tesla's can drive themselves, and their car
| owners stick them in public bathrooms where people can see
| them, that is, as well, illegal advertisement, even if
| Tesla did not stick those stickers themselves.
|
| The law basically requires all companies selling products
| in Germany to be honest about what their products can and
| cannot do. This is good for consumers, and good for
| companies doing business there, because everybody is forced
| to play by the same rules.
|
| The definition of being honest and what communication means
| etc. are all super loose, so most companies don't risk
| lying about their products. There are dozens of consumer
| protection organizations that'll sue a company for you due
| to false advertisement. The main consequences for the sued
| company are usually damages if there are any, and mainly
| the fines designed to discourage false advertisement. Most
| of the money ends up on the tax payers accounts, so
| consumers are really encouraged to report these times of
| crimes.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Advertising is a pre-purchase concern however, and requires
| companies to not be deceptive. "You'll figure out what our term
| really meant after you buy it" isn't much of a defense.
| bgorman wrote:
| I wonder how much BMW/Daimler/Volkswagen had to do with this.
|
| It is a common practice for technology companies to offer
| features that will only become available after a certain time
| period. It actually takes time and money to build these features.
|
| I'm sure the fact that BMW/Daimler/VW have completely botched
| their EV/Autonomous vehicle strategy and the automotive industry
| is Germany's cash cow has nothing at all to do with the court's
| decision.
|
| Disclosure: I do not any automotive companies stock, and I am a
| dual US/German citizen.
| chki wrote:
| > I'm sure the fact that BMW/Daimler/VW have completely botched
| their EV/Autonomous vehicle strategy and the automotive
| industry is Germany's cash cow has nothing at all to do with
| the court's decision.
|
| What are you implying? That the German Court felt pressured by
| the Auto Lobby to take this decision? That the judges were
| biased? Bribed? Vague statements like this are very unhelpful,
| because you can't argue against them but they try to make a
| point anyway.
| bgorman wrote:
| I am implying that governments (including court systems)
| often make decisions directly and indirectly to protect
| domestic companies at the expense of foreign companies.
| filoleg wrote:
| > That the German Court felt pressured by the Auto Lobby to
| take this decision?
|
| Probably that + the constituents. When a very large chunk of
| your constituents are employed by local car manufacturing
| companies, letting those companies fail and lose to a foreign
| competitor not only loses money for those companies, it also
| puts a threat of unemployment on your voting population.
|
| Lobbying from local car companies + your voting population's
| employment dependent on success of those local car companies
| is a very strong combination.
|
| EDIT: to clarify, I am aware that judges in Germany are not
| elected, I wasn't implying that judges would support the ban
| just get re-elected. I meant it to say that the judge could
| see it not only as some lobbying effort, but also as a move
| to protect interests of the working people they are serving.
| DasIch wrote:
| Judges in Germany generally aren't elected. The few that
| are cannot be re-elected and have fairly long terms.
|
| The voting population in this case would consist of
| politicians in the legislative branch.
| filoleg wrote:
| I am aware they are not elected, I wasn't implying that
| judges would do it just get re-elected. I meant it to say
| that the judge could see it not only as some lobbying
| effort, but also as a move to protect interests of the
| working people they are serving.
| chki wrote:
| But in Germany courts have basically no relationship to
| "their constituents" because judges aren't elected but
| appointed (lifetime appointment). Of course you might argue
| that promotion chances are higher if your decisions are
| "popular", however such a small decision as in the current
| case which hase basically not had any media attention in
| Germany will most likely not have any impact on the
| deciding judges career.
|
| Edit: after reviewing it, there hase been some media
| attention on this case in Germany as well.
| stetrain wrote:
| Announcing features to be delivered later is common. Charging
| up front for those features with no delivery date is a bit less
| common.
|
| In any case, should it not be made clear what the current
| capabilities of the car and system are as part of the
| advertising and purchase process?
|
| That seems to be the issue that the court is discussing, not
| the premise that Tesla is pre-selling future autonomous
| capabilities that have not yet been delivered.
| Domenic_S wrote:
| You are not required to buy the "full self-driving" package
| when you buy a tesla.
|
| It is abundantly clear what the current feature set is. From
| https://www.tesla.com/autopilot :
|
| > _Autopilot enables your car to steer, accelerate and brake
| automatically within its lane.
|
| Current Autopilot features require active driver supervision
| and do not make the vehicle autonomous._
| stetrain wrote:
| Requirement to buy has nothing to do with it.
|
| The page you linked has a video that says:
|
| "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal
| reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving
| itself"
|
| They also sell a package literally named "Full Self-Driving
| Capability"
|
| Yes, they qualify it in smaller print, in the manual, on
| the website, etc. But the number of Youtube videos of
| people showing their car "driving itself" shows that
| there's definitely an implication that the car can _almost_
| drive itself and is constantly learning and getting better,
| reinforced by things said by Elon over the years.
|
| It's not blatantly incorrect, but it does all combine to
| create a picture than can be misleading for someone who
| doesn't dig into the details. And misleading marketing is
| what is being discussed by the court.
| csunbird wrote:
| Whether the decision was influenced by German car makers, I
| think the decision is correct. The car is not fully autonomous
| and requires your hands on the wheel all the times.
| mrtksn wrote:
| This was probably the most brilliant advertising scheme of all
| times. Tesla is not just an electric car, it's the self driving
| car brand - even if it doesn't actually do that.
|
| I believe banning this kind of advertisement will only cement
| Tesla's image as the "Self Driving Car company" as no other
| company would be able to replicate it. People will continue to
| post memes about self driving Teslas but no one else would be
| able to claim anything like that up until they actually make a
| self driving car, and if they do it before Tesla, when people
| hear about it they will say "Oh cool!, So just like a Tesla?".
| xinsight wrote:
| Or it backfires when people realize their newly purchased,
| expensive car doesn't do what they thought it could do. Tesla
| is not managing expectations well.
| londons_explore wrote:
| That's what the 7 day return period is for.
| ojnabieoot wrote:
| > This was probably the most brilliant advertising scheme of
| all times. Tesla is not just an electric car, it's the self
| driving car brand - even if it doesn't actually do that.
|
| Acting with total disregard for the safety of your users and
| violating laws around false advertising is not "brilliant." It
| wasn't "brilliant" when Bill Gates browbeat manufacturers to
| bundle Internet Explorer with Windows, even if he made a lot of
| money. It wasn't "brilliant" when Mark Zuckerberg broke the law
| to snoop on users phones and sell their data to advertisers,
| even if he used some of that money to buy a private island.
|
| And if I distract my opponent and steal their bishop, I don't
| become a brilliant chess player if I win the match. Like Musk,
| Zuckerberg, and Gates, I would just be a massive jerk.
| coronadisaster wrote:
| Tesla haven't been sued for this yet?
| subsubzero wrote:
| Auto-pilot is disingenuous at best, it should be labelled
| "driving assist" or something similar. I remember that one person
| in florida[1] where they died by having their tesla on "auto-
| pilot" and a tractor trailer truck collided and killed them while
| they were watching Harry Potter and not driving with their
| attention on the road. Would this person have died if the Auto-
| pilot feature was named something different? Who can say as
| people do dumb things on the road, but it could lead tesla to
| future lawsuits from similar events.
|
| [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla-
| dri...
| elishuseynoff wrote:
| ))
| maxharris wrote:
| If you actually believe that Tesla will fail to deliver full
| self-driving in the coming years, I have two questions.
|
| 1. have you watched this entire technical presentation made by
| Andrej Karpathy, Senior Director of AI at Tesla?
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx7BXih7zx8
|
| 2. if you understand what you've seen in that video, why do you
| think Tesla will fail?
| ryan93 wrote:
| Google has a much larger and better funded team that still
| doesnt seem close. Karpathy is no doubt smart but google has
| like 10 karpathys for every one TESLA has.
| bflesch wrote:
| The problem is these 10 karpathys have no vision, otherwise
| they would've joined Tesla.
| maxharris wrote:
| Did you watch the video? Waymo is stuck using lidar, and the
| video explains why that's a dead-end.
|
| (Want to keep in touch about this bet? I'm maxharris9 on
| twitter.)
| catalogia wrote:
| I skimmed the video. It's doing what I expected, knocking
| down a goofy strawman of _LIDAR-only_ while ignoring the
| obvious _camera /LIDAR sensor fusion._ The depth map Tesla
| is getting from stereoscopic vision is pretty shoddy;
| sensor fusion with LIDAR is the obvious solution. The
| reason Telsa resists this is because they want to market
| their cars as having all the requisite hardware and
| acknowledging the usefulness of LIDAR wouldn't let them
| market their cars that way profitably.
| maxharris wrote:
| Hmm, looks like Tesla actually _does_ do sensor fusion,
| just not with lidar:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19803817
|
| I also think that being _so_ cynical about Tesla 's
| motives is pretty short-sighted from an investment
| perspective. In the long-term, they don't win if they
| don't get this right.
| catalogia wrote:
| Their radar/ultrasound has _awful_ angular resolution.
| That 's where LIDAR excels.
|
| This is why Telsa cars run into trucks parked across the
| street. Their stereoscopic depth map is shoddy and the
| radar or ultrasound has awful angular resolution that
| can't tell the difference between an object parked next
| to the street and one parked in the middle of the street.
|
| > _" In the long-term, they don't win if they don't get
| this right."_
|
| They've been claiming they're on the cusp of getting it
| right in the _short_ -term for years. So far, my cynicism
| has served me well.
| kirillzubovsky wrote:
| As a Tesla owner, and regardless of the presentation, I have
| serious doubt that Tesla will be able to solve all the edge
| cases. Machine learning needs data, and with my family in the
| car, I don't want it to make a decision whether or not to
| break, while heading in ongoing traffic. I want the car to
| know.
|
| Right now, 99% reasonable self-driving doesn't bother me
| because I am always in control, and I already know where the
| car is going to mess up and get ready to take control ahead of
| time. It works, and it works really well.
|
| But the different between 100% and the 99% is all the
| difference that matters, and it's colossal.
|
| I hope they can figure this out, but I don't know how. I hope
| they do.
| Dahoon wrote:
| For one because they said it would be here already but they
| keep moving the goal post.
| maxharris wrote:
| Yeah, but that's how every single thing that Elon Musk does
| is.
|
| I followed all those failures at SpaceX before they landed
| the first booster, or the Model 3 intro, or fairing catches,
| or the original Model S. These things all took a lot longer
| than you'd expect from his comments, but they all happened!
| detaro wrote:
| What's "the coming years"? 5 years after they first made the
| claim? 5 years from now? 5 years from 5 years from now?
| maxharris wrote:
| 2024. Cathie Wood's bull case for _everything_ going right
| for Tesla is 24k /share in 2024. She also breaks out
| everything else, shows what happens to the share price if
| autonomy doesn't happen, or if they don't keep building
| gigafactories, etc.
| lazyjones wrote:
| The hate in this thread is staggering. Let's see you explain how
| "smart" your phone is...
| nixass wrote:
| Full autonomous driving is so far away that I don't know why
| people and media even talk about it.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Because companies like Tesla keep claiming it's just around the
| bend...
| kp98 wrote:
| and politicians that need a useful lie to leverage ie Yang
| stating all the driving jobs will be gone in 5 years lol
| rtkwe wrote:
| Trucking jobs are a little more vulnerable because
| theoretically highway driving to a depot or drop off is
| easier than city driving. Or there's an older idea of
| making convoy trucks where multiple semis follow one human
| piloted truck.
| natch wrote:
| Can someone provide a link to a Tesla advertisement? Haven't seen
| this.
| FabHK wrote:
| https://www.tesla.com/de_de/models
|
| > Hardware fur autonomes Fahren Jedes neue Model S verfugt
| standardmassig uber modernste Hardware, um die Autopilot-
| Funktionalitat schon heute und vollkommen autonomes Fahren in
| der Zukunft zu ermoglichen. Software-Updates werden diese
| Funktionalitat im Laufe der Zeit weiter ausbauen und
| verbessern.
|
| > Die Autopilot-Funktionalitat ermoglicht dem Fahrzeug
| automatisches Lenken, Beschleunigen und Bremsen auf seiner
| Spur. Die Funktionalitat fur autonomes Fahren bietet
| zusatzliche Merkmale und erweitert bestehende Funktionen, um
| Ihrem Fahrzeug weitere Fahigkeiten zu verleihen.
|
| Looks like a pretty close translation of the same thing on the
| US site:
|
| https://www.tesla.com/models
|
| > Full Self-Driving Hardware Every new Model S comes standard
| with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features
| today, and full self-driving capabilities in the future--
| through software updates designed to improve functionality over
| time.
|
| > Autopilot enables your car to steer, accelerate and brake
| automatically within its lane. Full Self-Driving Capability
| introduces additional features and improves existing
| functionality to make your car more capable over time
| including:
| natch wrote:
| That's a web site though, not an advertisement. Was asking
| about advertisements.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| How is that not an advertisement? It seems like a textbook
| example.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| That thing you saw on tv that came on during the show you
| like? Simply a short, informative documentary my company
| has produced. No advertising here, no sir!
| Slartie wrote:
| That web site clearly advertises a Tesla car. Hence it is
| an advertisement.
|
| Maybe you meant to say "TV commercial"? The German law
| doesn't make that distinction though, which means that
| blatantly false claims about capabilities of a product are
| just as illegal on the products' website as they are in a
| products' TV commercial.
| natch wrote:
| I don't see any blatantly false claims though. But
| certainly there can be false interpretations.
| kabes wrote:
| Not a lot of companies can get away with selling $6000 packages
| on which they'll never be able to deliver.
| dlivingston wrote:
| The Full Self Driving package is actually quite good. With the
| exception of going "hands free", this is an accurate video on
| the current state of FSD: https://youtu.be/tlThdr3O5Qo
| pbasista wrote:
| This is merely a demonstration of what it is capable of in
| ideal conditions.
|
| Perhaps the driving engine was manually pre-trained for this
| particular stretch of road. Maybe what we see in the video is
| one successful run out of 100s that have been tried. We do
| not know the details. In my opinion it is reasonable to
| assume that it was a publicity stunt. Maybe if you try the
| same thing on a neighboring road two hours later, it would
| fail 95% of the time.
|
| So far, the customers cannot use this level of autonomy. We
| can only speculate why but I believe that if it was usable in
| real world scenarios, Tesla would have enabled it. Since
| Tesla does not enable it and instead focuses on low hanging
| fruits like stopping on red lights, it appears that the
| technology is not ready yet. I think that is the main issue
| with Tesla's advertising about it. Not the name they use for
| it.
|
| I can imagine that $8000 option of "full self driving" sells
| better than $8000 option of "restricted driving assistance
| limited to ideal weather and traffic conditions hopefully
| available in a few years", for instance. But at the same time
| I believe that using misleading product names or descriptions
| in order to increase the product's perceived value should not
| be tolerated.
| ReidZB wrote:
| Another huge difference: the current FSD feature set will not
| make turns at intersections as demonstrated in this video. It
| now (as of recently) can be configured to automatically stop
| at appropriate traffic signage (stop signs, red/yellow
| lights, not sure about yields). However, it won't make a left
| or right turn.
|
| Some caveats: sometimes it will still want to stop at a green
| light, in my experience, and requires a manual override; and,
| if you're the foremost car in your lane at a traffic light,
| it won't begin moving on its own. I assume the same is true
| for stop signs.
|
| I guess that video is intended to be a preview of what the
| current software could do with all the driver interaction
| safety switches off (no required hands on wheel, no
| requirement to confirm safety through intersections/turns,
| etc) and all the internal feature flags turned on
| (particularly: enabling turns and enabling Navigate on
| Autopilot on non-freeways).
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| Definitely not in Germany. It won't even take sharp turns.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| It's up to $8000 now.
| martythemaniak wrote:
| Well, I'm gonna disagree. Let's quote wikipedia:
|
| > An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an
| aircraft, marine craft or spacecraft without requiring constant
| manual control by a human operator. Autopilot does not replace
| human operators. Instead, autopilot assists the operator's
| control of the vehicle, allowing the operator to focus on broader
| aspects of operations (for example, monitoring the trajectory,
| weather and on-board systems).
|
| This is 100% exactly what Tesla is selling. Instead of constant
| manual control you focus on the broader operations of your car.
|
| Even the colloquial use of "autopilot" makes it clear that being
| on autopilot means you're not paying very much attention:
| https://learnersdictionary.com/qa/what-does-on-autopilot-mea...
|
| Your car being on autopilot very much implies you still have to
| pay attention.
| richardrk wrote:
| Not sure if that quote supports your argument. Tesla states:
|
| "Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability are intended for
| use with a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the
| wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment." [0]
|
| This sounds very different from "allowing the operator to focus
| on broader aspects of operations". I have never heard of pilots
| having their hand and feet on the stick and paddles in case the
| airplane make an incorrect maneuver.
|
| [0] https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/support/autopilot-and-full-
| self-...
| atonalfreerider wrote:
| > I have never heard of pilots having their hand and feet on
| the stick and paddles in case the airplane make an incorrect
| maneuver.
|
| From the FAA guidlines on Autopilot:
|
| > Be ready to fly the aircraft manually to ensure proper
| course/clearance tracking in case of autopilot failure or
| misprogramming [0]
|
| [0] https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manual
| s/a...
| ummonk wrote:
| Being ready to fly doesn't require keeping your hand and
| feet on the stick and paddles.
| atonalfreerider wrote:
| The FAA guideline is "ready to fly manually" -> key word
| "manual" from the Latin manus meaning "hand". Tesla is
| going a step further by requiring hands-on contact at all
| times, which makes this system a MORE restrictive
| autopilot.
|
| Contrary to what has been posted in other comments,
| pilots don't just get up and start walking around the
| aircraft. There must be one pilot always ready to take
| IMMEDIATE control of the aircraft.
|
| I hate when arguments devolve into semantics, which is
| the premise of this whole thread. But for the sake of
| discussing semantics, the use of the word "autopilot" is
| technically accurate. Its vernacular understanding is
| not. But this was also the case with cruise control. See
| this case where a driver set a cruise control on her RV
| and got up to make a cup of tea:
|
| https://www.suffolkgazette.com/news/motorhome-crash/
| paulcole wrote:
| > All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3,
| have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a
| safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.
|
| From Tesla.com/autopilot in February of 2017. Absolutely
| shameful.
| billfor wrote:
| I wonder how many people complaining about Tesla's marketing
| actually have a Tesla. The car clearly makes you acknowledge that
| the driver is responsible before using any Autopilot/FSD
| capability, and if you bought the car with the expectation that
| it didn't , you have a return period to get your money back in
| full. It doesn't matter if they said it would take you to the
| moon and back. If you test drive or buy it and don't like it then
| just return it: no harm done.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| I get your point, and to a small degree agree with you. The
| Tesla owners I know understand the limits of the technology and
| drive reasonably. I'm considering buying a Tesla, knowing the
| limits of the technology myself. However there are two big ugly
| facts which bug the hell out of me...
|
| - Their _advertising_ is misleading to most consumers. Whether
| informed people or existing owners know what the product is
| capable of doesn 't matter, they are advertising in a
| misleading way.
|
| > no harm done.
|
| It is clear that a subset of Tesla drivers puts too much faith
| in the effectiveness of Tesla's autopilot. Even though these
| drivers acknowledged and accepted the risks, it's clear they
| believe they can trust their Tesla to keep them safe even while
| they are not watching the road. Tesla's marketing clearly
| exacerbates this. The fact that Tesla's do the right thing 99%
| of the time reinforces that marketing message... up until that
| 0.01% situation occurs, then _lots of harm done_
| Kbelicius wrote:
| > It doesn't matter if they said it would take you to the moon
| and back.
|
| Yes it does.
| twic wrote:
| > It doesn't matter if they said it would take you to the moon
| and back. If you test drive or buy it and don't like it then
| just return it: no harm done.
|
| Under German law it seems that it does, in fact, matter.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| It does in Germany (as the ruling in question indicates). False
| advertising here is very much considered 'harm done' and no way
| to do business. Lying to the customer until she takes the
| product out of the box is in no way, shape or form how you
| operate in this country. (well I guess it was for wirecard
| which is embarassing enough)
|
| I do not want to live somewhere where I have to order ten
| things, three are fake, three I have to sent back, another few
| break and the last thing works.
| viklove wrote:
| Even in the US false advertising like OP suggests is
| considered fraudulent and against the law. There are just too
| many Musk fanboys around here that don't seem to know how the
| law works.
| empath75 wrote:
| It sounds like you don't believe in the concept of false
| advertising at all. Telling the truth after you buy the thing
| doesn't absolve you of the initial fraud. To my mind it
| exacerbates it, because it demonstrates that you know that your
| advertising is fraudulent.
| billfor wrote:
| I think some of the comments here are specific to the German
| market, and others are more general. My original comment was
| "in general" and not specific to the German market.
|
| False advertising may be wrong, but it might not always be
| criminal. Is "Fat Free" really fat free....? If we held
| politicians to the same standard there would be a lot more of
| them in jail.
|
| Ceveat Emptor, but at least Tesla does let you return it,
| minus the inconvenience, which you might deserve for not
| reading up on it before (I did when I bought mine and knew
| exactly what Autopilot "meant").
| mdszy wrote:
| Or maybe you can stop bootlicking corporations for half a
| second and think that they should be held responsible for
| literally lying lmao.
| krick wrote:
| > False advertising may be wrong, but it might not always
| be criminal
|
| Here, you got it exactly right. I am delighted to see that
| Germany makes sure that wrongdoing (at least this
| particular case) is a crime there, and I can only wish
| other markets make these two words more synonymous as well.
| I mean, this is pretty much exactly what law is supposed to
| do.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Good. Not that it will stop Tesla from the next round of hype,
| from the most recent news we can expect level 5 autonomous
| driving soon. Maybe they'll call it 'autopilot'? Who will they
| blame when it doesn't work?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-07-14 23:00 UTC)