4 ms·

Promotional video from 5 years ago still up at https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot: THE PERSON IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT IS ONLY THERE F

by sidibe 4y ago

Promotional video from 5 years ago still up at https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot: THE PERSON IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT IS ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS If that's not technically fraud, it's at least fraud in spirit.

lesuorac 4y ago
I personally believe if tesla could cut the corner of a safety driver they would. I'd believe it 5 years ago and I'd believe it today. If it turns out that there was a human driver of that car I think it'd count as fraud but I mean all you have is a video of a demo. Where is the fraud there?
- sidibe 4y ago
  The video suggests the car can drive itself without supervision, just those pesky laws are holding them back. We all know 5+ years later there is way more than "legal reasons" for the car not to drive itself without supervision. They used intentionally misleading stunts like this video to get people to shell out $10k dollars thinking the technology is imminent
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    In general, I think Tesla FSD buyers have a strong argument for a refund in that they never got what they purchased. But a refund is different from fraud. w.r.t. the video though, I think it pretty clearly shows that the car can drive itself. What do you see in that video? Do you not think a Tesla of today couldn't be used to produce a similar video to that one 5 years ago? It's definitely pesky legal reasons as to why Tesla won't let you do more with self driving. You don't need an AI driver to T-bone another car. It's definitely a column A&B type situation. If some state passed a law giving manufactors immunity in the event of a collision involving self driving I 100% think Tesla would OTA update cars in that state.
    - sidibe 4y ago
      I don't doubt that on this take, it was driving itself successfully, or that they could reproduce the video today. But when you say the driver is only there for legal reasons you are implying that the car doesn't need supervision except to appease regulators. You are implying that the technology side of it is much more solved than it is.
    - pengaru 4y ago
      > In general, I think Tesla FSD buyers have a strong argument for a refund in that they never got what they purchased. But a refund is different from fraud. The video link is for Autopilot and you're talking about FSD... Last I checked Autopilot couldn't even avoid crashing into stopped emergency vehicles. So clearly the human isn't present purely for legal reasons, unless they mean the legal risks of causing an accident.
    - lozenge 4y ago
      How is a refund different from fraud? If you think they're entitled to a refund there must be some legal basis for it. If you accept payment on an order you can't fulfil that is fraud.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > In general, I think Tesla FSD buyers have a strong argument for a refund in that they never got what they purchased. But a refund is different from fraud. Yes, refund is a remedy, fraud is one of the torts that arguably occurred which warrants the remedy.
- sethd 4y ago
  The video was faked (at least partly): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/06/technology/tesla-autopilot-elon-musk.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/06/technology/tesla-autopilo... “The video did not provide a full picture of how the car operated during the filming,” “The route taken by the car had been charted ahead of time by software that created a three-dimensional digital map, a feature unavailable to drivers using the commercial version of Autopilot." “At one point during the filming of the video, the car crashed into a roadside barrier on Tesla property while using Autopilot and had to be repaired.”
sorokod 4y ago
Well yes, the LEGAL REASON is that the driver will be legally liable for any damage caused.
leobg 4y ago
I don’t get it. The person did not intervene on that specific drive. It would have been possible to film this with no driver on board. But they didn’t because it would have been illegal.
- sidibe 4y ago
  The fact you think they wouldn't have needed a driver on board if not for the law proves how deceptive this is. Do you know how many takes this took? Neither do I, but it's very doubtful that they'd let the Tesla do this alone even with today's FSD even if it were legal. Their FSD is nowhere near ready for that.
  - leobg 4y ago
    I own a Tesla. I could close my eyes on the highway for tens of miles and would probably be ok. Same thing will be true for those in the FSD beta when driving city to city. But it would be a stupid thing to do.
    - sidibe 4y ago
      Agreed. Therefore the video from when FSD was even less reliable shouldn't have implied that supervision was only necessary for legal reasons.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  > The person did not intervene on that specific drive. Unfortunately, that part is not true. It's one of the claims in the lawsuit [1]. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33910962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33910962

by sidibe 4y ago

lesuorac 4y ago

I personally believe if tesla could cut the corner of a safety driver they would. I'd believe it 5 years ago and I'd believe it today. If it turns out that there was a human driver of that car I think it'd count as fraud but I mean all you have is a video of a demo. Where is the fraud there?

sidibe 4y ago
The video suggests the car can drive itself without supervision, just those pesky laws are holding them back. We all know 5+ years later there is way more than "legal reasons" for the car not to drive itself without supervision. They used intentionally misleading stunts like this video to get people to shell out $10k dollars thinking the technology is imminent
- lesuorac 4y ago
  In general, I think Tesla FSD buyers have a strong argument for a refund in that they never got what they purchased. But a refund is different from fraud. w.r.t. the video though, I think it pretty clearly shows that the car can drive itself. What do you see in that video? Do you not think a Tesla of today couldn't be used to produce a similar video to that one 5 years ago? It's definitely pesky legal reasons as to why Tesla won't let you do more with self driving. You don't need an AI driver to T-bone another car. It's definitely a column A&B type situation. If some state passed a law giving manufactors immunity in the event of a collision involving self driving I 100% think Tesla would OTA update cars in that state.
  - sidibe 4y ago
    I don't doubt that on this take, it was driving itself successfully, or that they could reproduce the video today. But when you say the driver is only there for legal reasons you are implying that the car doesn't need supervision except to appease regulators. You are implying that the technology side of it is much more solved than it is.
  - pengaru 4y ago
    > In general, I think Tesla FSD buyers have a strong argument for a refund in that they never got what they purchased. But a refund is different from fraud. The video link is for Autopilot and you're talking about FSD... Last I checked Autopilot couldn't even avoid crashing into stopped emergency vehicles. So clearly the human isn't present purely for legal reasons, unless they mean the legal risks of causing an accident.
  - lozenge 4y ago
    How is a refund different from fraud? If you think they're entitled to a refund there must be some legal basis for it. If you accept payment on an order you can't fulfil that is fraud.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > In general, I think Tesla FSD buyers have a strong argument for a refund in that they never got what they purchased. But a refund is different from fraud. Yes, refund is a remedy, fraud is one of the torts that arguably occurred which warrants the remedy.
sethd 4y ago
The video was faked (at least partly): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/06/technology/tesla-autopilot-elon-musk.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/06/technology/tesla-autopilo... “The video did not provide a full picture of how the car operated during the filming,” “The route taken by the car had been charted ahead of time by software that created a three-dimensional digital map, a feature unavailable to drivers using the commercial version of Autopilot." “At one point during the filming of the video, the car crashed into a roadside barrier on Tesla property while using Autopilot and had to be repaired.”

sorokod 4y ago

Well yes, the LEGAL REASON is that the driver will be legally liable for any damage caused.

leobg 4y ago

I don’t get it. The person did not intervene on that specific drive. It would have been possible to film this with no driver on board. But they didn’t because it would have been illegal.

sidibe 4y ago
The fact you think they wouldn't have needed a driver on board if not for the law proves how deceptive this is. Do you know how many takes this took? Neither do I, but it's very doubtful that they'd let the Tesla do this alone even with today's FSD even if it were legal. Their FSD is nowhere near ready for that.
- leobg 4y ago
  I own a Tesla. I could close my eyes on the highway for tens of miles and would probably be ok. Same thing will be true for those in the FSD beta when driving city to city. But it would be a stupid thing to do.
  - sidibe 4y ago
    Agreed. Therefore the video from when FSD was even less reliable shouldn't have implied that supervision was only necessary for legal reasons.
lesuorac 4y ago
> The person did not intervene on that specific drive. Unfortunately, that part is not true. It's one of the claims in the lawsuit [1]. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33910962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33910962