4 ms·
Tesla says its self-driving technology may be a ‘failure’ – but not fraud
- WheelsAtLarge 4y agoTesla's claims are close to Theranos claims to have tech that it did not have. Why isn't Tesla guilty of fraud? Do they have a clause in their contract that saves them?
- Imnimo 4y ago>In its defense, Tesla lawyers said that “mere failure to realize a long-term, aspirational goal is not fraud.” I wonder what percentage of FSD purchasers believed that they were paying $15k for a "long-term, aspirational goal"?
- akerl_ 4y agoIn fairness, I believed I was paying $10k for a couple specific existing features and that anything else was Elon's insane dreams with no basis in reality. Honestly, the main surprise to me is that I assumed Tesla would keep shipping minor quality of life improvements/features while they kept lying about FSD, but I hadn't accounted for the possibility they'd actually pivot all their dev cycles onto the Fraud Project.
- clnq 4y agoThen half of all crypto is a mere failure to realize a long-term, aspirational goal (the moon), not fraud.
- linsomniac 4y agoThere's a difference between having long term aspirational goals, and taking money from people promising to deliver it. Feels a bit like snake oil to me.
- more_corn 4y agoIt would have been fine were it not for The Sink Man’s aggressive insistence that it be called something it objectively is not and his assertions that his pipe dream would work imminently. He sold “Full Self Driving” when he had nothing close. Abstractly speaking he sold a thing he didn’t have, one which every expert agreed he wouldn’t be able to deliver (some say ever, more optimistic people say not soon) and which he proved to be unable to make. That’s Theranos level fraud. It’s not that blood testing is impossible, it’s that they sold a thing that’s not possible and swore up and down that you had, and people paid for it under false pretenses. Refunding everyone who bought FSD and accurately labeling it (Dangerously incomplete driver assist perhaps?) should be the very least they are required to do. Requiring the sink man to stop lying about it and putting some real teeth behind the requirement is probably reasonable too (we found that multi million dollar fines just make him laugh, but a billion dollar penalty makes him sit up. Just putting that out there)
- theGnuMe 4y agoA big issue is that people have died because of autopilot. There is probably some liability there. Is it Ford Pinto level liability or what? This is the lawyers talking so a lot rides on the Judge.
- cryptoegorophy 4y agoSaying people died because of autopilot is the same as saying people have died because of seat belts. Seat belts work and saved far many lives than they claimed. Similar to autopilot, it saved people far more than it killed as well as prevented numerous accidents. As a user (I am one) you need to know its limitations and weak spots, but overall it outperforms humans by far.
- leoh 4y agoSeatbelts are monotonically helpful for safety “FSD” is not
- theGnuMe 4y agoIt’s not the same thing at all. Seat belts are legally mandated safety devices. Autopilot is not. Even then if your seat belt malfunctions you’d have a claim against the manufacturer. Remember the exploding Takata airbags and shrapnel?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mzs 4y ago>The motion to dismiss the case rests mainly on Tesla’s contention that the papers customers signed when they bought their cars obligate them to individually file claims through the private arbitration system.
- kbos87 4y agoWhen I paid for FSD, the language on the website was something to the effect of “exit to exit highway driving.” It has very reliably done that for me for ~20k miles. I do agree that the name and the hyperbole from Musk are problematic, but it’s far from a fraud in my eyes.