7 ms·

I don't understand why Tesla has been and still is allowed to use the term Full Self Driving (FSD) to imply, that is advertise, something that clearly is not an

by ablekh 6y ago

I don't understand why Tesla has been and still is allowed to use the term Full Self Driving (FSD) to imply, that is advertise, something that clearly is not and will not be in the near(est) future. Where is FTC, which is supposed to protect and enforce truth in advertising in the U.S. (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advert...)? Especially considering that relevant false advertising (in terms of the naming / use of the FSD term, not the actual feature set) clearly can negatively affect the driver's judgement on manually controlling a car in various situations and, thus, ultimately, the safety of the driver and passengers.

omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
Probably because of the small print/legalese. 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.
- ablekh 6y ago
  I understand it. That is why I have emphasized above ("in terms of the naming / use of the FSD term, not the actual feature set") that, regardless of the small print / legalese / disclaimers / clarifications etc., I believe that using confusing and not matching current capabilities terms should not be allowed. I might be wrong (as I'm not a lawyer), but I think that it is well within FTC's jurisdiction and power to enforce both truthfulness and clarity of advertising in the U.S.
  - saganus 6y ago
    I wonder if they could try to switch to something like "Fully-assisted Self Driving" to keep the original FSD accronym, if the term ends up being regulated.
    - ablekh 6y ago
      Use of an acronym requires a prior use of a relevant definition (spell out), which is the term. The expression "Fully-assisted Self Driving" is no less incorrect / ambiguous than the original one. Therefore, Tesla would continue violating the same principle of truth and clarity in advertising as well as, perhaps, some policies and/or laws.
      - camjohnson26 6y ago
        Not to mention the Term “Full Self Driving” was originally created to disambiguate “self driving”, which may still require driver assistance. FSD was sold as a robotaxi software that could make you money while you sleep, while it has always been nothing more than a level 2 system, as Tesla admits in the fine print and to regulators. Musk on Twitter contradicts this consistently.
        omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
        FSD also mentioned/implied that driver assistance could be required, but did mention/omply that it should be good enough for someone to take a trip without intervention. Practically speaking it's just a larger feature set than EAP/AP. Edit - Here's a link to the old FSD fine print. They say the system is designed to take trips with no input from the driver, but they don't guarantee that, which to implies FSD is just meant to be good level 2 driver assistance. https://web.archive.org/web/20180806143159/https://www.tesla.com/models/design?redirect=no https://web.archive.org/web/20180806143159/https://www.tesla... To be fair, Tesla could consider stuff like TACC to be level 3+ (no beta status, no disclaimer about always paying attention, etc), but it's definitely not level 4 because they require driver input and nag then disable without it. The robotaxi/Tesla network idea was separate from EAP/AP and FSD and was only mentioned on the Tesla website for a short period of time with even more fine print/legalese (it was pie in the sky, which I imagine is why they took it down).
        camjohnson26 6y ago
        To be clear I mean the term “Full Self Driving” as opposed to the product Tesla is selling.
- garmaine 6y ago
  That doesn't matter. You don't get claim something which is clearly false in commonsensical interpretation, but get away with it because the fine print. You can't say "the sky is green[1]" and then in footnote [1] say "by green, we mean blue." That's not allowed, and the FTC is supposed to prosecute this. You can say "the sky is cerulean[1]" and then note that although cerulean can be categorized as either green or blue, in this context you mean blue. But calling the feature "full self driving" when it is not full self driving is more akin to outright calling the sky green.
- fma 6y ago
  Someone can successfully sue Subway for advertising a footlong sub that isn't always 12"...but Tesla and FSD...slapping fine print lets them off the hook...
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    That lawsuit wasn't successful, partially because Subway's use of the term "footlong" is not supposed to be taken as literally a foot long.
    - totalZero 6y ago
      I invite anyone who is interested in learning about the arguments, as I was, to check out this article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2016/02/29/why-the-subway-footlong-lawsuits-fell-short/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2016/02/29/why-the-...
      - azinman2 6y ago
        I’m shocked they even settled. Probably they felt it was the cheapest action, but such a lawsuit feels quite predatory. An important legal concept is harms done, and as this Forbes article points out, there really weren’t any material harms done. Now Tesla on the other hand, absolutely falls into the realm of material harms done…
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        The settlement was later thrown out I think, I have no idea why they agreed to it either https://www.reuters.com/article/us-subway-decision-footlong-idUSKCN1B52H6 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-subway-decision-footlong-...
        fma 6y ago
        Wow I knew they settled and to me that's "successful". I didn't realize the settlement was thrown out...or that a settlement can even be thrown out!
effingwewt 6y ago
Indeed wasn't Germany the first to stop them from pulling this shit? We in the US allow our advertisers to lie to us about any- and everything, and they wonder why we hate advertising in general. Maybe we need to stop getting mad at the method and start getting mad at the companies doing the lying. I've said repeatedly I was ready to leave this country, but only in the last 2 years have I begun actually making plans to leave. I'm voting with my feet, but where to go? Shouldn't take years of careful planning to just up and go somewhere else.
airhead969 6y ago
100% natural, cage-free, hormone-free self-driving. Or as George Carlin called it: bullshit.
Animats 6y ago
Tesla is not allowed to do that in Europe.[1] In the US, they got away with a lot during the Trump administration. That seems to be changing. From the NTSB statement: "The success of these AVs depends on the driver completing a monitoring task that requires sustained attention; however, humans generally perform poorly in the role of monitor. Also, if the automated control system behaves consistently and reliably for prolonged periods, the user of that system can become complacent about its operation and may not respond appropriately when a situation requires him or her to act." The NTSB people see this clearly because they investigate aviation accidents. Over reliance on automation is a known problem in aviation. The aviation systems are pretty good, but they are not yet good enough to be the pilot in command. Pilot training covers this in detail. Drivers are not trained that way. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/tesla-autopilot-self-driving-false-advertising-germany.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/tesla-autopilot-self-driving...
- prox 6y ago
  That creates a strange situation where a monitor would need more training vs a driving license? Or would that require an overhaul of the training itself?
  - neltnerb 6y ago
    I think that's not especially strange when these partially automated systems aren't fully autonomous yet. I would have a hard time arguing against requiring a few hours of class time learning about exactly what the systems do and what pitfalls there are because those things are not at all like what anyone has ever been taught in drivers ed before.
    - Animats 6y ago
      Yes. Again, "If the automated control system behaves consistently and reliably for prolonged periods, the user of that system can become complacent about its operation and may not respond appropriately when a situation requires him or her to act." That's what led to the accidents where a Tesla plowed into a freeway divide barrier (California), a street sweeper (China), a parked van (Germany), a fire truck (California), a semitrailer (Florida), an overturned truck (Taiwan) ... There's a certain similarity to Tesla autopilot crashes. Everything was going just great until Tesla's automated system failed to detect a big solid obstacle. Tesla drivers need to be very aware of that failure mode. It's amazing that Tesla is allowed to ship that. It's Musk's "we don't need LIDAR, we'll just kill people instead".
heavyset_go 6y ago
What blows my mind is that this promotional Tesla video[1] has been online for almost 5 years, with this claim in the video description: > The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself. [1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware-neighborhood-long?redirect=no https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- xedeon 6y ago
  > The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself. I mean, they are not completely wrong. Although not perfect. FSD Beta is still pretty impressive. There's no denying that: 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d9nwpjgtt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d9nwpjgtt4 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pfabe-gxgQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pfabe-gxgQ
  - Someone1234 6y ago
    Their video is from 2016, yours is from the last six months. "FSD Beta," which incidentally they told CA DMV was emphatically not full self-driving[0], hasn't been around for the vast majority of time that that video has been online so using it as an excuse is disingenuous. Plus Tesla's own words in their emails disprove this anyway. [0] https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-tesla-robotaxi--fsd-emails/ https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-te...
    - xedeon 6y ago
      I suggest you research who is behind the site you just linked and what their agenda is. The videos that I linked are also from Dec 2020 and Feb 2021 respectively. Not from "from the last six months". Here's one from 5 days ago (Mar 8, 2021): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zafOEZrKZ1c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zafOEZrKZ1c
alkonaut 6y ago
I don't understand why they even attempt to push beyond even basic driver assistance. I'd buy a well built car with good battery tech and a decent cruise control and never look back. I don't mind driving for another 20 years if the car is reliable and has good enough range. Making my car clever is so far down on my car wishlist it's not even visible. The elephant in the room is that even if there are technological breakthroughs shortenig "FSD" from perhaps my pessismistic guess of 50 years to an almost laghably optimistic 20 years, the legal mess it will be stuck in will be at least as long as the technical one was. Tesla seem to make very competitive cars even without wasting money on self-driving ones. I'd try to keep that spot instead of risking it by going down the FSD rabbit hole.
- tw04 6y ago
  They already make that? FSD is an optional upgrade. While I would agree the FSD path is a dangerous one, if they crack it they also instantly justify their share price.
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    I’m thinking they must be using a nontrivial fraction of their budget to develop self-driving tech. Money that could be used for advancing the advantage they already have. I think the fruitless pursuit of self driving will be what makes boring cars from traditional manufacturers catch up. Assuming no manufacturer reaches true full FSD within say 25-50 years, and the usable returns of such research diminishes, then the winning play would be spending as little as possible on it.
    - marvin 6y ago
      It's not obvious that Tesla's FSD program will fail. If it succeeds, the investment will have done exactly what you describe - advancing the advantage Tesla already has.
      - jsight 6y ago
        Yep, and they appear to be doing it for less money than their competitors too.
morty_s 6y ago
Oof yeah. I really like what’s Tesla is doing. I love my model y, but I definitely skipped out on “$10k more for FSD.” It’s just not there yet. Do I think people need to step in and force Tesla to dial back their advertisement, eh... idk, maybe, maybe yes? To me, it’s pretty clear what “FSD” gets you these days (spoilers: not a lot). I suspect the average Tesla customer can also read. I also think reckless drivers will be reckless regardless of law or guidelines. I think the increasing price for “FSD” and calling it fsd is all marketing designed to get people to FOMO into it (knowing that it might take a while). What I would like to know is, if I pay “10k for FSD Someday” will this be applied to a future Tesla I buy that will actually be capable of FSD?
- ericd 6y ago
  It’s not transferable to a new car, FYI. Also, the FSD beta is supposedly opening imminently to almost everyone who’s bought the package and wants to try it.
rodgerd 6y ago
> I don't understand why Tesla has been and still is allowed to use the term Full Self Driving (FSD) to imply, that is advertise, something that clearly is not and will not be in the near(est) future. Peter Thiel's support for Donald Trump, alongside the army of Musketeers, continues to pay dividends, I guess.

by ablekh 6y ago

omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago

Probably because of the small print/legalese. 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.

ablekh 6y ago
I understand it. That is why I have emphasized above ("in terms of the naming / use of the FSD term, not the actual feature set") that, regardless of the small print / legalese / disclaimers / clarifications etc., I believe that using confusing and not matching current capabilities terms should not be allowed. I might be wrong (as I'm not a lawyer), but I think that it is well within FTC's jurisdiction and power to enforce both truthfulness and clarity of advertising in the U.S.
- saganus 6y ago
  I wonder if they could try to switch to something like "Fully-assisted Self Driving" to keep the original FSD accronym, if the term ends up being regulated.
  - ablekh 6y ago
    Use of an acronym requires a prior use of a relevant definition (spell out), which is the term. The expression "Fully-assisted Self Driving" is no less incorrect / ambiguous than the original one. Therefore, Tesla would continue violating the same principle of truth and clarity in advertising as well as, perhaps, some policies and/or laws.
    - camjohnson26 6y ago
      Not to mention the Term “Full Self Driving” was originally created to disambiguate “self driving”, which may still require driver assistance. FSD was sold as a robotaxi software that could make you money while you sleep, while it has always been nothing more than a level 2 system, as Tesla admits in the fine print and to regulators. Musk on Twitter contradicts this consistently.
      - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
        FSD also mentioned/implied that driver assistance could be required, but did mention/omply that it should be good enough for someone to take a trip without intervention. Practically speaking it's just a larger feature set than EAP/AP. Edit - Here's a link to the old FSD fine print. They say the system is designed to take trips with no input from the driver, but they don't guarantee that, which to implies FSD is just meant to be good level 2 driver assistance. https://web.archive.org/web/20180806143159/https://www.tesla.com/models/design?redirect=no https://web.archive.org/web/20180806143159/https://www.tesla... To be fair, Tesla could consider stuff like TACC to be level 3+ (no beta status, no disclaimer about always paying attention, etc), but it's definitely not level 4 because they require driver input and nag then disable without it. The robotaxi/Tesla network idea was separate from EAP/AP and FSD and was only mentioned on the Tesla website for a short period of time with even more fine print/legalese (it was pie in the sky, which I imagine is why they took it down).
        camjohnson26 6y ago
        To be clear I mean the term “Full Self Driving” as opposed to the product Tesla is selling.
garmaine 6y ago
That doesn't matter. You don't get claim something which is clearly false in commonsensical interpretation, but get away with it because the fine print. You can't say "the sky is green[1]" and then in footnote [1] say "by green, we mean blue." That's not allowed, and the FTC is supposed to prosecute this. You can say "the sky is cerulean[1]" and then note that although cerulean can be categorized as either green or blue, in this context you mean blue. But calling the feature "full self driving" when it is not full self driving is more akin to outright calling the sky green.
fma 6y ago
Someone can successfully sue Subway for advertising a footlong sub that isn't always 12"...but Tesla and FSD...slapping fine print lets them off the hook...
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  That lawsuit wasn't successful, partially because Subway's use of the term "footlong" is not supposed to be taken as literally a foot long.
  - totalZero 6y ago
    I invite anyone who is interested in learning about the arguments, as I was, to check out this article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2016/02/29/why-the-subway-footlong-lawsuits-fell-short/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2016/02/29/why-the-...
    - azinman2 6y ago
      I’m shocked they even settled. Probably they felt it was the cheapest action, but such a lawsuit feels quite predatory. An important legal concept is harms done, and as this Forbes article points out, there really weren’t any material harms done. Now Tesla on the other hand, absolutely falls into the realm of material harms done…
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        The settlement was later thrown out I think, I have no idea why they agreed to it either https://www.reuters.com/article/us-subway-decision-footlong-idUSKCN1B52H6 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-subway-decision-footlong-...
        fma 6y ago
        Wow I knew they settled and to me that's "successful". I didn't realize the settlement was thrown out...or that a settlement can even be thrown out!

effingwewt 6y ago

Indeed wasn't Germany the first to stop them from pulling this shit? We in the US allow our advertisers to lie to us about any- and everything, and they wonder why we hate advertising in general. Maybe we need to stop getting mad at the method and start getting mad at the companies doing the lying. I've said repeatedly I was ready to leave this country, but only in the last 2 years have I begun actually making plans to leave. I'm voting with my feet, but where to go? Shouldn't take years of careful planning to just up and go somewhere else.

airhead969 6y ago

100% natural, cage-free, hormone-free self-driving. Or as George Carlin called it: bullshit.

Animats 6y ago

Tesla is not allowed to do that in Europe.[1] In the US, they got away with a lot during the Trump administration. That seems to be changing. From the NTSB statement: "The success of these AVs depends on the driver completing a monitoring task that requires sustained attention; however, humans generally perform poorly in the role of monitor. Also, if the automated control system behaves consistently and reliably for prolonged periods, the user of that system can become complacent about its operation and may not respond appropriately when a situation requires him or her to act." The NTSB people see this clearly because they investigate aviation accidents. Over reliance on automation is a known problem in aviation. The aviation systems are pretty good, but they are not yet good enough to be the pilot in command. Pilot training covers this in detail. Drivers are not trained that way. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/tesla-autopilot-self-driving-false-advertising-germany.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/tesla-autopilot-self-driving...

prox 6y ago
That creates a strange situation where a monitor would need more training vs a driving license? Or would that require an overhaul of the training itself?
- neltnerb 6y ago
  I think that's not especially strange when these partially automated systems aren't fully autonomous yet. I would have a hard time arguing against requiring a few hours of class time learning about exactly what the systems do and what pitfalls there are because those things are not at all like what anyone has ever been taught in drivers ed before.
  - Animats 6y ago
    Yes. Again, "If the automated control system behaves consistently and reliably for prolonged periods, the user of that system can become complacent about its operation and may not respond appropriately when a situation requires him or her to act." That's what led to the accidents where a Tesla plowed into a freeway divide barrier (California), a street sweeper (China), a parked van (Germany), a fire truck (California), a semitrailer (Florida), an overturned truck (Taiwan) ... There's a certain similarity to Tesla autopilot crashes. Everything was going just great until Tesla's automated system failed to detect a big solid obstacle. Tesla drivers need to be very aware of that failure mode. It's amazing that Tesla is allowed to ship that. It's Musk's "we don't need LIDAR, we'll just kill people instead".

heavyset_go 6y ago

What blows my mind is that this promotional Tesla video[1] has been online for almost 5 years, with this claim in the video description: > The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself. [1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware-neighborhood-long?redirect=no https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
xedeon 6y ago
> The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself. I mean, they are not completely wrong. Although not perfect. FSD Beta is still pretty impressive. There's no denying that: 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d9nwpjgtt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d9nwpjgtt4 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pfabe-gxgQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pfabe-gxgQ
- Someone1234 6y ago
  Their video is from 2016, yours is from the last six months. "FSD Beta," which incidentally they told CA DMV was emphatically not full self-driving[0], hasn't been around for the vast majority of time that that video has been online so using it as an excuse is disingenuous. Plus Tesla's own words in their emails disprove this anyway. [0] https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-tesla-robotaxi--fsd-emails/ https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-te...
  - xedeon 6y ago
    I suggest you research who is behind the site you just linked and what their agenda is. The videos that I linked are also from Dec 2020 and Feb 2021 respectively. Not from "from the last six months". Here's one from 5 days ago (Mar 8, 2021): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zafOEZrKZ1c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zafOEZrKZ1c

alkonaut 6y ago

I don't understand why they even attempt to push beyond even basic driver assistance. I'd buy a well built car with good battery tech and a decent cruise control and never look back. I don't mind driving for another 20 years if the car is reliable and has good enough range. Making my car clever is so far down on my car wishlist it's not even visible. The elephant in the room is that even if there are technological breakthroughs shortenig "FSD" from perhaps my pessismistic guess of 50 years to an almost laghably optimistic 20 years, the legal mess it will be stuck in will be at least as long as the technical one was. Tesla seem to make very competitive cars even without wasting money on self-driving ones. I'd try to keep that spot instead of risking it by going down the FSD rabbit hole.

tw04 6y ago
They already make that? FSD is an optional upgrade. While I would agree the FSD path is a dangerous one, if they crack it they also instantly justify their share price.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  I’m thinking they must be using a nontrivial fraction of their budget to develop self-driving tech. Money that could be used for advancing the advantage they already have. I think the fruitless pursuit of self driving will be what makes boring cars from traditional manufacturers catch up. Assuming no manufacturer reaches true full FSD within say 25-50 years, and the usable returns of such research diminishes, then the winning play would be spending as little as possible on it.
  - marvin 6y ago
    It's not obvious that Tesla's FSD program will fail. If it succeeds, the investment will have done exactly what you describe - advancing the advantage Tesla already has.
    - jsight 6y ago
      Yep, and they appear to be doing it for less money than their competitors too.

morty_s 6y ago

Oof yeah. I really like what’s Tesla is doing. I love my model y, but I definitely skipped out on “$10k more for FSD.” It’s just not there yet. Do I think people need to step in and force Tesla to dial back their advertisement, eh... idk, maybe, maybe yes? To me, it’s pretty clear what “FSD” gets you these days (spoilers: not a lot). I suspect the average Tesla customer can also read. I also think reckless drivers will be reckless regardless of law or guidelines. I think the increasing price for “FSD” and calling it fsd is all marketing designed to get people to FOMO into it (knowing that it might take a while). What I would like to know is, if I pay “10k for FSD Someday” will this be applied to a future Tesla I buy that will actually be capable of FSD?

ericd 6y ago
It’s not transferable to a new car, FYI. Also, the FSD beta is supposedly opening imminently to almost everyone who’s bought the package and wants to try it.

rodgerd 6y ago

> I don't understand why Tesla has been and still is allowed to use the term Full Self Driving (FSD) to imply, that is advertise, something that clearly is not and will not be in the near(est) future. Peter Thiel's support for Donald Trump, alongside the army of Musketeers, continues to pay dividends, I guess.