3 ms·

"All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greate

by davej 9y ago

"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." This is perhaps a case of purposely confusing marketing. All vehicles have the hardware for full self-driving capability but not yet the software. The full self-driving is to be enabled later on through an over-the-air software update.

notahacker 9y ago
They can't even honestly claim they've got the hardware, when a "full safe driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver" is at this stage something in the realms of hypothesis, and the software which gets closest to doing so relies on far more hardware than a Tesla to achieve this. It's not merely purposely confusing. It's at best, not an outright lie only because they hope it's true.
mozumder 9y ago
They don't even have the hardware equivalent of a human driver. People's eyes can detect individual photons, at much higher resolution and dynamic range than a typical camera.
- patcheudor 9y ago
  It's amazing how many "basics" Tesla is missing with the statement that their cars have all the tech to be fully self driving. I have an Infiniti QX80 with the surround camera system, lane stay, and collision warning system. Unlike Tesla, they've not gone as far as to implement an autopilot feature and from what I can tell, for good reason. In the less than a year I've owned it, the side warning collision sensor / camera combination have falsely identified phantom threats due to road dust and debris and entirely missed real threats. The sensors simply don't have a self cleaning mechanism like our eyes which is one fairly obvious problem that's lead to a few issues with my QX80. In looking through Tesla's marketing white papers and what-not I see no mention of how they keep their sensor system clean. It seems like that should be a pretty basic concern.
ajmurmann 9y ago
I'm not even sure it's fair to describe it as purposefully confusing. If I'm in the market for a Tesla I want to make sure the expensive car I'm buying will be getting all the updates I'm excited about. Otherwise I might hold off buying for a few years.
- wilun 9y ago
  Even HN readers are misinterpreting it, and there is nothing to prevent confusion from Tesla side on these marketing pages. The question of purposefulness is mostly irrelevant. It is their responsibility to avoid ambiguity in this domain because this could be dangerous. They are not doing it => they are putting people in danger. Now a posteriori if somebody manages to sue Tesla after a death a bad injury, maybe the purposefulness will be studied (but it will be hard to decide), but a priori it does not matter much as for the consequences of their in any case mislead attempts (even if it was only for an advertising harmless reason in the mind of the people who wrote it like that in the first place). To finish, that they are carefully choosing their words to be technically true over and over, yet understood in an other way by most of the people, is at least distasteful. That they are doing it over and over through all existing channel makes it more and more probable that this is even on purpose, of course there is no proof but when we reach a certain point, we can be sufficiently convinced without a formal proof (hell even math proofs are rarely checked formally...)

by davej 9y ago

notahacker 9y ago

They can't even honestly claim they've got the hardware, when a "full safe driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver" is at this stage something in the realms of hypothesis, and the software which gets closest to doing so relies on far more hardware than a Tesla to achieve this. It's not merely purposely confusing. It's at best, not an outright lie only because they hope it's true.

mozumder 9y ago

They don't even have the hardware equivalent of a human driver. People's eyes can detect individual photons, at much higher resolution and dynamic range than a typical camera.

patcheudor 9y ago
It's amazing how many "basics" Tesla is missing with the statement that their cars have all the tech to be fully self driving. I have an Infiniti QX80 with the surround camera system, lane stay, and collision warning system. Unlike Tesla, they've not gone as far as to implement an autopilot feature and from what I can tell, for good reason. In the less than a year I've owned it, the side warning collision sensor / camera combination have falsely identified phantom threats due to road dust and debris and entirely missed real threats. The sensors simply don't have a self cleaning mechanism like our eyes which is one fairly obvious problem that's lead to a few issues with my QX80. In looking through Tesla's marketing white papers and what-not I see no mention of how they keep their sensor system clean. It seems like that should be a pretty basic concern.

ajmurmann 9y ago

I'm not even sure it's fair to describe it as purposefully confusing. If I'm in the market for a Tesla I want to make sure the expensive car I'm buying will be getting all the updates I'm excited about. Otherwise I might hold off buying for a few years.

wilun 9y ago
Even HN readers are misinterpreting it, and there is nothing to prevent confusion from Tesla side on these marketing pages. The question of purposefulness is mostly irrelevant. It is their responsibility to avoid ambiguity in this domain because this could be dangerous. They are not doing it => they are putting people in danger. Now a posteriori if somebody manages to sue Tesla after a death a bad injury, maybe the purposefulness will be studied (but it will be hard to decide), but a priori it does not matter much as for the consequences of their in any case mislead attempts (even if it was only for an advertising harmless reason in the mind of the people who wrote it like that in the first place). To finish, that they are carefully choosing their words to be technically true over and over, yet understood in an other way by most of the people, is at least distasteful. That they are doing it over and over through all existing channel makes it more and more probable that this is even on purpose, of course there is no proof but when we reach a certain point, we can be sufficiently convinced without a formal proof (hell even math proofs are rarely checked formally...)