6 ms·

Probably because of the small print/legalese. The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The acti

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!

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!