6 ms·

Tesla's "Auto-pilot" is one of the most blatant market-speak lies I have come across lately, and they have been getting away it.

beamatronic 8y ago
I feel like I-5 between SF and LA is probably one of the safer places to use it. Any place else, maybe not so much.
- wooter 8y ago
  typical fear-based, anti-freedom, anti-progress response in these comments. The NHTSA found a 40% crash rate reduction from Tesla's autopilot. So yea "blame Elon Musk"
  - tptacek 8y ago
    No, that's not at all clear, and is in fact unlikely; rather: some of the capabilities in the basket of features Tesla calls "autopilot" are associated with lower crash rates, and it's not at all clear which; there are steep reductions in accidents, possibly exceeding Tesla's numbers, from cars with automatic emergency braking. Just because AEBs are useful safety features does not mean that auto-steering is necessarily on net a safe feature.
    - rohit2412 8y ago
      Thank you for saying this. I'm just astounded people don't question things logically
  - intortus 8y ago
    No, the NHTSA found no such thing. They did, however, determine that Tesla was not participating in their investigations in good faith.
  - simion314 8y ago
    This is false, stop this Tesla propaganda with false facts.
    - dang 8y ago
      Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.
      - simion314 8y ago
        The person posted same false fact/conclusion that there is data to prove autopilot is 40% safer all over HN, it looked to me as a misinformation campaign, You are right though, it may look as a PR campaign but I can be sure, it could be just a misinformed fanboy
njarboe 8y ago
But not any worse than the term cruise control really.
- dirkgently 8y ago
  Auto pilot implies level 5 autonomous vehicle, while Tesla has glorified assistance capabilities, at level 1. Idiots are using as if Tesla is Level 5.
  - ascorbic 8y ago
    No, idiots are naming it as if it's level 5.
- hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
  You're getting downvoted, but I agree. A commercial pilot doesn't flip on autopilot and start browsing the internet on a phone or take a nap. And that's at 30k feet where there's little traffic to worry about. It seems like a misunderstanding of what the technology does, by consumers and the media. I'm no expert on Tesla's marketing history, but I'm of the opinion that these crashes are due to drivers misunderstanding that the system does and what its capabilities are.
  - mrgordon 8y ago
    I don’t totally disagree with you but I will point out that planes land everyday in white out conditions with no visibility due to level 3 landing systems. The pilot can’t see anything and thus can’t help really even if they are awake. They’re mostly just there to talk to air traffic control for these kinds of landings. One pilot told me the Airbus planes no longer allow manual control.
    - ams6110 8y ago
      Accoring to Wikipedia, you still need to have a minimum runway visibility unless you are landing CAT-IIIc, which is not used commercially (yet). CAT-III landings are automatic, but the pilot needs some visibility to decide if the plane is going to touch down in the landing zone. If they are totally blind they will divert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#ILS_categories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#ILS_...
TAForObvReasons 8y ago
"Move fast and break things" is probably the worst philosophy to sweep over SV. It encourages a worldview where externalities that potentially break laws and maim or kill other people should be disregarded in the pursuit of "progress" and profits. But it's nice to see the HN community finally start to come to this realization
- joejerryronnie 8y ago
  "Move fast and break things" was never meant for actual real world physical things (or laws). It was a mantra that encouraged breaking sacred cows and assumptions but has been bastardized and vilified by the anti-big tech crowd. Obviously you can be a little more lax on your production quality if you're building inane web apps rather than rocket ships or medical devices.
  - wooter 8y ago
    not to mention that autopilot has demonstrably reduced the crash rate by 40% so it really is just vilification from a desire for retribution without consideration of actual impact
    - tptacek 8y ago
      No, it hasn't (see upthread, where you repeated this claim).
    - simion314 8y ago
      False, read again the facts and stop spreading wrong conclusions or facts, btw the study you are thinking off is not open so it was not verified, I think there is an action in justice to open the data.
- Natsu 8y ago
  "Move fast and break things" was Facebook's idea, not Tesla's.
  - 8y ago

beamatronic 8y ago

I feel like I-5 between SF and LA is probably one of the safer places to use it. Any place else, maybe not so much.

wooter 8y ago
typical fear-based, anti-freedom, anti-progress response in these comments. The NHTSA found a 40% crash rate reduction from Tesla's autopilot. So yea "blame Elon Musk"
- tptacek 8y ago
  No, that's not at all clear, and is in fact unlikely; rather: some of the capabilities in the basket of features Tesla calls "autopilot" are associated with lower crash rates, and it's not at all clear which; there are steep reductions in accidents, possibly exceeding Tesla's numbers, from cars with automatic emergency braking. Just because AEBs are useful safety features does not mean that auto-steering is necessarily on net a safe feature.
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    Thank you for saying this. I'm just astounded people don't question things logically
- intortus 8y ago
  No, the NHTSA found no such thing. They did, however, determine that Tesla was not participating in their investigations in good faith.
- simion314 8y ago
  This is false, stop this Tesla propaganda with false facts.
  - dang 8y ago
    Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.
    - simion314 8y ago
      The person posted same false fact/conclusion that there is data to prove autopilot is 40% safer all over HN, it looked to me as a misinformation campaign, You are right though, it may look as a PR campaign but I can be sure, it could be just a misinformed fanboy

njarboe 8y ago

But not any worse than the term cruise control really.

dirkgently 8y ago
Auto pilot implies level 5 autonomous vehicle, while Tesla has glorified assistance capabilities, at level 1. Idiots are using as if Tesla is Level 5.
- ascorbic 8y ago
  No, idiots are naming it as if it's level 5.
hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
You're getting downvoted, but I agree. A commercial pilot doesn't flip on autopilot and start browsing the internet on a phone or take a nap. And that's at 30k feet where there's little traffic to worry about. It seems like a misunderstanding of what the technology does, by consumers and the media. I'm no expert on Tesla's marketing history, but I'm of the opinion that these crashes are due to drivers misunderstanding that the system does and what its capabilities are.
- mrgordon 8y ago
  I don’t totally disagree with you but I will point out that planes land everyday in white out conditions with no visibility due to level 3 landing systems. The pilot can’t see anything and thus can’t help really even if they are awake. They’re mostly just there to talk to air traffic control for these kinds of landings. One pilot told me the Airbus planes no longer allow manual control.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    Accoring to Wikipedia, you still need to have a minimum runway visibility unless you are landing CAT-IIIc, which is not used commercially (yet). CAT-III landings are automatic, but the pilot needs some visibility to decide if the plane is going to touch down in the landing zone. If they are totally blind they will divert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#ILS_categories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#ILS_...

TAForObvReasons 8y ago

"Move fast and break things" is probably the worst philosophy to sweep over SV. It encourages a worldview where externalities that potentially break laws and maim or kill other people should be disregarded in the pursuit of "progress" and profits. But it's nice to see the HN community finally start to come to this realization

joejerryronnie 8y ago
"Move fast and break things" was never meant for actual real world physical things (or laws). It was a mantra that encouraged breaking sacred cows and assumptions but has been bastardized and vilified by the anti-big tech crowd. Obviously you can be a little more lax on your production quality if you're building inane web apps rather than rocket ships or medical devices.
- wooter 8y ago
  not to mention that autopilot has demonstrably reduced the crash rate by 40% so it really is just vilification from a desire for retribution without consideration of actual impact
  - tptacek 8y ago
    No, it hasn't (see upthread, where you repeated this claim).
  - simion314 8y ago
    False, read again the facts and stop spreading wrong conclusions or facts, btw the study you are thinking off is not open so it was not verified, I think there is an action in justice to open the data.
Natsu 8y ago
"Move fast and break things" was Facebook's idea, not Tesla's.
- 8y ago