4 ms·

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

by 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.

by sidibe 4y ago

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.