4 ms·

Those other marketing terms are not trying to mislead people into behaving dangerously in an environment where people can get killed. Perhaps I'm a minority, bu

Those other marketing terms are not trying to mislead people into behaving dangerously in an environment where people can get killed. Perhaps I'm a minority, but I absolutely don't want companies to use marketing weasel words when it comes to self-driving capabilities. Let's not beat about the bush, it's clear that some drivers are already abusing the current "self-driving but not really-self driving" autopilot features. This steps up the bullshit saying "oh this time it is full self driving (but not the total absolute hands off autonomous driving". So which is it? If it's not fully autonomous, don't bullshit saying it's full self driving. In other words, if there's no blue in Blue Motion, no count of 4 in a quattro and no mach in Mach-E, that's not likely to get people killed. But if there's no full self driving in something called "Full Self Driving", that can and will get people killed.

onethought 5y ago
How will it kill people exactly? You mean the people that (despite the countless warnings and explanations) still think that they can completely ignore their surroundings… then what? The very cautious auto driving car that follows the speed limit and is criticised for being “too conservative” will… do what exactly?
- jdlshore 5y ago
  You seem to think Tesla’s system is perfectly safe. I’ve seen nothing that indicates that—just the opposite, in fact.
  - onethought 5y ago
    Could you reference an FSD safety incident? I know there have been some autopilot accidents but that’s not this system.
    - jdlshore 5y ago
      Do a web search for “Tesla fsd beta scary” for video examples.
      - onethought 5y ago
        The only examples I could find were of people uncomfortable with the automation, but not scared of an accident. Also no actual accident. Do you have a direct link?
        short_sells_poo 5y ago
        My contention is only indirectly with the safety of the system, and mostly with the labeling and messaging. A cruise control system that is unsafe to leave unattended but isn't called "Fully Self-Driving" or even "Autopilot" is fine. There's no ambiguity. Everyone knows that cruise control is a dumb system that will happily crash you into the wall. However, I have issues with calling and marketing something "Fully Self-Driving" and then adding paragraphs of text to explain that it's actually not fully autonomous, in fact it's not supposed to be autonomous at all and the driver has to have their full attention on the road and hands on the wheel and any other operation is dangerous. If this was something benign, I'd just consider it disingenuous and shady marketing (that seems par for the course for corporations), but in case of a 2 ton vehicle it's not just their own customers at risk, but everyone around them. Yes, you and me know what this system really is and can approach it responsibly. But we see so much evidence that there are many people who have no scruples about ignoring this (willfully or not) and assuming that the system must be good enough if it's called "Fully Self-Driving" to unpack a lunch on their lap.

onethought 5y ago

How will it kill people exactly? You mean the people that (despite the countless warnings and explanations) still think that they can completely ignore their surroundings… then what? The very cautious auto driving car that follows the speed limit and is criticised for being “too conservative” will… do what exactly?

jdlshore 5y ago
You seem to think Tesla’s system is perfectly safe. I’ve seen nothing that indicates that—just the opposite, in fact.
- onethought 5y ago
  Could you reference an FSD safety incident? I know there have been some autopilot accidents but that’s not this system.
  - jdlshore 5y ago
    Do a web search for “Tesla fsd beta scary” for video examples.
    - onethought 5y ago
      The only examples I could find were of people uncomfortable with the automation, but not scared of an accident. Also no actual accident. Do you have a direct link?
      - short_sells_poo 5y ago
        My contention is only indirectly with the safety of the system, and mostly with the labeling and messaging. A cruise control system that is unsafe to leave unattended but isn't called "Fully Self-Driving" or even "Autopilot" is fine. There's no ambiguity. Everyone knows that cruise control is a dumb system that will happily crash you into the wall. However, I have issues with calling and marketing something "Fully Self-Driving" and then adding paragraphs of text to explain that it's actually not fully autonomous, in fact it's not supposed to be autonomous at all and the driver has to have their full attention on the road and hands on the wheel and any other operation is dangerous. If this was something benign, I'd just consider it disingenuous and shady marketing (that seems par for the course for corporations), but in case of a 2 ton vehicle it's not just their own customers at risk, but everyone around them. Yes, you and me know what this system really is and can approach it responsibly. But we see so much evidence that there are many people who have no scruples about ignoring this (willfully or not) and assuming that the system must be good enough if it's called "Fully Self-Driving" to unpack a lunch on their lap.