7 ms·

Pretend you don’t know anything about the different levels. You’re just a random person looking to buy a car. What does “full self driving” sound like to you?

JustSomeNobody 4y ago
Great, so we're back to "unlimited data" doesn't really mean "unlimited" but, just a large amount, but not really a large amount, because... Words have meaning. Full self driving, to anyone who isn't a nerd who likes to pick shit apart, means the freaking car will drive all by itself as if a human were driving it, maybe even better.
MichaelZuo 4y ago
It would sound like it could handle all commonly occurring road conditions. Such as rain, fog, snow, construction work, tunnels, bridges, downtown intersections, bike lanes, etc... I wouldn't expect it to handle rare phenomena such as hurricanes, hail storms, a collapsed bridge, etc...
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  Tesla FSD can barely handle a balmy 70 degree day, so I think you'd be disappointed. I might biased because I work on actual self-driving efforts, but nothing at all about Tesla has ever indicated they were serious about solving self driving in any capacity. The day that Elon proclaimed they already had the sensor suite decided was the day that they openly admitted this was fraud.
  - steve_adams_86 4y ago
    My opinion doesn’t matter, but your last point resonates with me because this struck me as totally bizarre too. I don’t work in sensing let alone using AI with sensing data, but I’m around it a lot and my second-hand knowledge kind of set off some red flags. In remote sensing for landscape architecture, hydrography, and other similar fields (making sense of static things where no one is at risk of dying immediately, and humans review the data), the care and knowledge that goes into choosing sensor suites and processing the data properly is huge. Yet Tesla comes out saying “we’ve got some mediocre cameras and we’re gonna run with it!” Seriously? What? I get that it’s a lot of cameras but making sense of 3d space isn’t trivial at all. It’s so bizarre. Again, I know nothing, they know more than I do. The whole thing just doesn’t sit right.
    - a1369209993 4y ago
      > Yet Tesla comes out saying “we’ve got some mediocre cameras and we’re gonna run with it!” To be fair, humans managed to solve self-driving with some mediocre cameras, some crappy microphones, and some unreliable force-feedback and chemical sensors, without (importantly) adding any new sensors to the hardware between start-of-project and successful full driving. So it's not a priori implausible that "use whatever sensors we have now, and just learn to compensate for any deficiencies in software", could work, since our only preexisting examples of full-self-driving (humans) essentially do that. It's just kind of stupid to hobble youself that way when you don't have to.
      - user_named 4y ago
        Humans don't have cameras.
        a1369209993 4y ago
        Sure they do. They're those two spherical mostly-white-with-colored-circles-on-the-front things embedded in the upper half of their face. (They usually tend to call them "eyes" for some reason.) They're closed-circuit and wired pretty directly into the brain, so it's not like webcams or recording cameras where you can semi-easily get the data off somewhere else, and obviouly they're kind of wet and squishy and not-easily-electronics-compatible like most human components, but in terms of actual functionality, they're cameras.
        steve_adams_86 4y ago
        > wired pretty directly into the brain Eyes are actually the only visible part of our brains. They aren’t wired pretty directly, they themselves are brain material.
      - steve_adams_86 4y ago
        The difference here is that our “cameras” are processed in ways we really don’t understand and at speeds we can’t seem to compete with yet (at least not with the quality of processing we have, so far). Our sight is also enhanced by our hearing or familiarity with certain driving situations and, in most cases, familiarity with certain places we drive frequently. If we isolated our eyes from our other senses I have a feeling we might actually be much worse at detecting things around us or making sense of what we’re seeing. Our senses like road feel can even help us use our eyes in anticipation of dangerous conditions like loose gravel or black ice. I know machines can do this too, but ours works so well and so quickly; it’s hard to compare with what’s on the market at the moment. Regardless, I think we agree on the final point. Such a strange way to limit a self driving car.
- secretsatan 4y ago
  Why not? Do you expect legal immunity?
amelius 4y ago
Depends if you read the fine print.
rootusrootus 4y ago
The only time I touch the controls on the car is to input the address I want to be driven to.
- jvm___ 4y ago
  And you can use it like a taxi service and send a non-driving human as a passenger. Or no passenger and just send it to an address to retrieve or deliver a package.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    It's probably reasonable to expect that there are some asterisks like paved roads only and can't drive in literally all weather conditions. But, yeah, no human supervision needed.
    - a1369209993 4y ago
      > some asterisks like paved roads only Some asterisks like non-paved roads will cause poor and potentially dangerous performance, technically. If I tell it to drive into a volcano, and getting it to do so is significantly harder than five minutes of repeating various variations on "Yes, I know it's a volcano and will likely destroy the car and everything in it; do so anyway.", it's defective. (Preferably it also should not be significantly easier, of course, at least not to the point of being able to do so accidentally.)
  - fbdab103 4y ago
    My ultimate dream is to be able to more or less avoid flying. Hop in my car at 11pm, punch in address, pull out the lay-flat seat, go to sleep, wake-up 7-8 hours away. If I make it a day trip, I can do the entire thing in reverse never having had to pay for a hotel. Living on the coast, I would still have to resort to flying, but there are many places I would enjoy that are reachable in an eight hour drive.
    - govg 4y ago
      You can do this in practically every EU country, not to mention Asia (I don't know about other parts of the globe) via trains. I don't get why it has to be a car. It's just that the US has zero infrastructure for both inter city as well as intra city public transport outside of like 4 cities.
derac 4y ago
I don't necessarily disagree, but I offer a couple of counterarguments: A. Most people who bought this knew what it was, that it was unfinished, and they were funding the research (which is a public good to some extent) B. There should be some degree of burden on the customer to research what they are buying, especially with a claim as extraordinary as "Full Self-Driving"
- derac 4y ago
  Counterargument to myself: Elon sold it with a claim that it would skyrocket the value of the vehicles.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    I never did understand how that passed the sniff test. Unleashing a fleet of self driving robotaxis wouldn't skryrocket the value of anything, it would be the fastest race to the bottom in memory.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      That particular aspect passes the sniff test for me. The race would only go so fast with a million cars produced per year, only some of which would be participating.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Maybe we should bring back patent medicines again? New, improved Radithor! If you're unhappy when your jaw falls off, it just means you should have read the fine print.
- CPLX 4y ago
  Maybe the burden should be on the seller to call it “unfinished and unreliable attempt at self driving” instead? The idea that we don’t let marketers make misleading product claims is very old. As a society our point of view is that no, actually the burden of proof should not be on the customer to figure out if a tube labeled “toothpaste” is actually wet gypsum or something.
ProAm 4y ago
Sounds like fraud.
CPLX 4y ago
It means a car that can drive in a reasonably broad range set if expected traffic conditions and has no failure mode that is unsafe at any point. It’s that second part that is the important one. If the car can’t drive in heavy snow or roadless areas or whatever that’s fine, as long as it’s able to recognize and avoid those situations in a graceful way, like refusing to engage with them and parking in a safe area, suggesting the trip be cancelled, that kind of thing. The current approach of it works, but when it doesn’t it will say “just kidding take over for me now” while going 70mph towards the side of a truck is definitely not that.
hakre 4y ago
> What does “full self driving” sound like to you? Well, that I would be fully self driving the car? ^^
- amelius 4y ago
  No it means that you have to drive the car with your full self.
ncr100 4y ago
I feel our government should regulate this kind of speech more aggressively, to boost the safety of the public. The messaging by Tesla has been misleading, yes. There have been many other examples of couching date-slippage and over-promises with phrases like "no promises but Cybertruck|FSD|Model 3|Rockets|AI|Robotics|Neural-Link|End-Of-The-World should be here in two years." Announcing a capability, and importantly MUSK acting as a widely-recognized public figure like it's ready - shaming every other fledgling competitor, before it's ready, is amounting to GASLIGHTING. A speculate this is what we should expect from the company-owner's notable, controversial personality type. Immediately upon receiving "Full Self Driving Beta", in the 201x's, some Tesla drivers CRASHED because they turned ON the lane-keep-assist and then left the car to do the driving .. straight into the back of a stopped truck, or a split open lane-divider, and died. To reiterate, this mis-leadership has resulted in death. I suspect that CEO personality-type is a salient factor in whether a company should be allowed to operate. Should we stop this .. should we prevent actual Companies operating? Not just a group of hobbyists but tax-paying, licensed, employing companies. It is OUR government. We can stop this predictable travesty of gaslighting -> good-faith belief -> bad outcomes.
- strawhatguy 4y ago
  No. I stopped at “the government should…” That never goes the way you think it will.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Advertising claims are in fact regulated. There just isn't a lot of enforcement but, at normal companies, legal teams are very conservative about making claims in advertising and marketing materials. If I claim our product is better than Brand X, you'd better believe legal is going to want to see the evidence and probably qualify the statement.
    - philippejara 4y ago
      Indeed false advertising is a thing and it's not legal(depending on where you live ? it is in most of the world that has teslas at least). The government reaching further than going for false advertising is where the slope gp mentioned would come in I assume, and on that I fully agree.
slg 4y ago
Musk is a charlatan, but why do people act like it is common to buy $40k+ cars like picking up some gum in the checkout aisle? What the features name sounds like is not the only factor here. People don’t buys cars with that lack of thought. What the salespeople say, what the marketing material says, what the manual says, what the CEO says in public, what the feature feels like during a test drive should all matter more. This isn’t a defense of Tesla. I think it still leaves an argument for fraud, but we really need a better argument than the same “the name sounds misleading when you first hear it” argument that has been repeated for years now. If that was all it took, we all would have sued cellphone companies for their “unlimited plans”.
- crote 4y ago
  This isn't a "9 out of 10 dentists recommend using our product" situation, and cellphone companies have been sued for failing to deliver true unlimited plans. It is being marketed as "Full Self Driving", and the CEO is publicly saying it is "in beta", "coming next year", and "just waiting for regulatory approval". In reality it needs constant driver supervision, is still primitive enough that it is directly linked to multiple fatalities, has been coming "next year" for over 6 years, and is clearly not even remotely finished. Customers have paid thousands of dollars for a feature they are not able to use, half a decade down the line. They may never be able to use it as advertised at all. The product as delivered is substantially different from anything the company says. It's like saying your car can do 0 to 60 in less than ten seconds and then delivering a car without an engine - while putting a statement in the small writing that the car currently only reaches this in freefall from a mountain top, but pinky promise that they will install the engine in a few years.
  - slg 4y ago
    Your comment helps prove my point because you didn’t stop at just the name. It takes more than “the name is a misleading” to be considered fraud. Tesla is guilty of more than just giving the feature a bad name. If you are arguing fraud, mention those other things. Because people don’t spend $40k+ based off a name of a feature. I can still go to Verizon’s website today and find “Unlimited” plans so the name clearly wasn’t the problem in whatever lawsuits they might have been involved in. And to reiterate, my point is not that Tesla is innocent. My point is that the most common argument used to point to their guilt is a stupid argument, especially considering there are better arguments available to argue the same underlying point.
haliskerbas 4y ago
Will not crash into stationary objects, bicyclists, pedestrians, or the cars in front of me. Will not randomly halt the car either.
ncallaway 4y ago
Pretending I knew nothing about the levels “full self driving” sounds like it means I could safely nap in the back seat of the car while en route .
mch82 4y ago
To me, “full self driving” has always meant the car has a built-in cab driver so I can work while the car drives to my parents for dinner 6 hours away, then sleep while the car drives me home. I’m not sure how the phrase “full self-driving” could mean anything other than that. Edit: When I pre-ordered a Model 3 Musk’s promise at that time was literally “press a button and your car will work as a taxi to earn money when you’re not using it”.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > I’m not sure how the phrase “full self-driving” could mean anything other than that. There is some room to argue about the conditions under which the car can drive itself. If the car couldn't handle a high-grade, winding mountain road with an inch of snow on the ground and yet more coming down, I don't think too many people would be fussed is a "full self-driving" car said "uh, no" (especially as a good fraction of drivers couldn't handle that either). To my end, if the car can't handle any condition that doesn't make me go "I think I should stay home," that should disqualify it.
  - newaccount74 4y ago
    Humans often drive in conditions were it's unsafe -- icy roads, dense fog, heavy rain, strong winds. We take the risk, and most times it's okay, except for the occasional pile-up on the highway. But I don't think a "full self-driving" car refusing to drive in those conditions would be a deal breaker. I'd prefer it if autonomous vehicles were more conservative and just refused to drive in unsafe conditions.
    - sameerds 4y ago
      A lot like a git merge, then :)
    - secretsatan 4y ago
      Well then, call it, self driving under perfect conditions but not as a star modifier
    - 4y ago
throw7 4y ago
I know what I want. I want to tell my car to go the the shop and get serviced, come back, and take me home after work. After a flight, have it pick up my inlaws at the baggage claim exit. etc...
wpietri 4y ago
It sounds a lot like something Musk promised in 2019: "Next year for sure, we will have over a million robotaxis on the road," "The fleet wakes up with an over-the-air update. That's all it takes." The most generous interpretation is that Musk is delusional and out of touch with his company and his technology. But I think it is more accurately described as bullshit ("speech intended to persuade without regard for truth") or a lie (making knowingly false statements). I think the interesting question is whether that legally ends up being fraud in the context of a civil suit. Whatever was going on in Musk's head (deluded, reckless, or lying) it seems like Tesla as an entity should have known that the cars were not actually self driving and that customers could reasonably think they were getting self driving.
- cwalv 4y ago
  > The most generous interpretation is that Musk is delusional and out of touch with his company and his technology. I'm not sure I'd describe that as a generous interpretation, but there is other evidence that he's just wildly optimistic/over-confident. E.g., he still pours significant investment/effort into his project to colonize Mars, even after describing falcon wing doors as "engineering hubris"
  - wpietri 4y ago
    It's not a particularly positive interpretation, but because it's the least bad, it's the most generous.
secretsatan 4y ago
Basically, steering wheel is optional, it wasn’t going to happen, it’s been clear for years
6510 4y ago
Getting drunk every day.

JustSomeNobody 4y ago

Great, so we're back to "unlimited data" doesn't really mean "unlimited" but, just a large amount, but not really a large amount, because... Words have meaning. Full self driving, to anyone who isn't a nerd who likes to pick shit apart, means the freaking car will drive all by itself as if a human were driving it, maybe even better.

MichaelZuo 4y ago

It would sound like it could handle all commonly occurring road conditions. Such as rain, fog, snow, construction work, tunnels, bridges, downtown intersections, bike lanes, etc... I wouldn't expect it to handle rare phenomena such as hurricanes, hail storms, a collapsed bridge, etc...

BoorishBears 4y ago
Tesla FSD can barely handle a balmy 70 degree day, so I think you'd be disappointed. I might biased because I work on actual self-driving efforts, but nothing at all about Tesla has ever indicated they were serious about solving self driving in any capacity. The day that Elon proclaimed they already had the sensor suite decided was the day that they openly admitted this was fraud.
- steve_adams_86 4y ago
  My opinion doesn’t matter, but your last point resonates with me because this struck me as totally bizarre too. I don’t work in sensing let alone using AI with sensing data, but I’m around it a lot and my second-hand knowledge kind of set off some red flags. In remote sensing for landscape architecture, hydrography, and other similar fields (making sense of static things where no one is at risk of dying immediately, and humans review the data), the care and knowledge that goes into choosing sensor suites and processing the data properly is huge. Yet Tesla comes out saying “we’ve got some mediocre cameras and we’re gonna run with it!” Seriously? What? I get that it’s a lot of cameras but making sense of 3d space isn’t trivial at all. It’s so bizarre. Again, I know nothing, they know more than I do. The whole thing just doesn’t sit right.
  - a1369209993 4y ago
    > Yet Tesla comes out saying “we’ve got some mediocre cameras and we’re gonna run with it!” To be fair, humans managed to solve self-driving with some mediocre cameras, some crappy microphones, and some unreliable force-feedback and chemical sensors, without (importantly) adding any new sensors to the hardware between start-of-project and successful full driving. So it's not a priori implausible that "use whatever sensors we have now, and just learn to compensate for any deficiencies in software", could work, since our only preexisting examples of full-self-driving (humans) essentially do that. It's just kind of stupid to hobble youself that way when you don't have to.
    - user_named 4y ago
      Humans don't have cameras.
      - a1369209993 4y ago
        Sure they do. They're those two spherical mostly-white-with-colored-circles-on-the-front things embedded in the upper half of their face. (They usually tend to call them "eyes" for some reason.) They're closed-circuit and wired pretty directly into the brain, so it's not like webcams or recording cameras where you can semi-easily get the data off somewhere else, and obviouly they're kind of wet and squishy and not-easily-electronics-compatible like most human components, but in terms of actual functionality, they're cameras.
        steve_adams_86 4y ago
        > wired pretty directly into the brain Eyes are actually the only visible part of our brains. They aren’t wired pretty directly, they themselves are brain material.
    - steve_adams_86 4y ago
      The difference here is that our “cameras” are processed in ways we really don’t understand and at speeds we can’t seem to compete with yet (at least not with the quality of processing we have, so far). Our sight is also enhanced by our hearing or familiarity with certain driving situations and, in most cases, familiarity with certain places we drive frequently. If we isolated our eyes from our other senses I have a feeling we might actually be much worse at detecting things around us or making sense of what we’re seeing. Our senses like road feel can even help us use our eyes in anticipation of dangerous conditions like loose gravel or black ice. I know machines can do this too, but ours works so well and so quickly; it’s hard to compare with what’s on the market at the moment. Regardless, I think we agree on the final point. Such a strange way to limit a self driving car.
secretsatan 4y ago
Why not? Do you expect legal immunity?

amelius 4y ago

Depends if you read the fine print.

rootusrootus 4y ago

The only time I touch the controls on the car is to input the address I want to be driven to.

jvm___ 4y ago
And you can use it like a taxi service and send a non-driving human as a passenger. Or no passenger and just send it to an address to retrieve or deliver a package.
- ghaff 4y ago
  It's probably reasonable to expect that there are some asterisks like paved roads only and can't drive in literally all weather conditions. But, yeah, no human supervision needed.
  - a1369209993 4y ago
    > some asterisks like paved roads only Some asterisks like non-paved roads will cause poor and potentially dangerous performance, technically. If I tell it to drive into a volcano, and getting it to do so is significantly harder than five minutes of repeating various variations on "Yes, I know it's a volcano and will likely destroy the car and everything in it; do so anyway.", it's defective. (Preferably it also should not be significantly easier, of course, at least not to the point of being able to do so accidentally.)
- fbdab103 4y ago
  My ultimate dream is to be able to more or less avoid flying. Hop in my car at 11pm, punch in address, pull out the lay-flat seat, go to sleep, wake-up 7-8 hours away. If I make it a day trip, I can do the entire thing in reverse never having had to pay for a hotel. Living on the coast, I would still have to resort to flying, but there are many places I would enjoy that are reachable in an eight hour drive.
  - govg 4y ago
    You can do this in practically every EU country, not to mention Asia (I don't know about other parts of the globe) via trains. I don't get why it has to be a car. It's just that the US has zero infrastructure for both inter city as well as intra city public transport outside of like 4 cities.

derac 4y ago

I don't necessarily disagree, but I offer a couple of counterarguments: A. Most people who bought this knew what it was, that it was unfinished, and they were funding the research (which is a public good to some extent) B. There should be some degree of burden on the customer to research what they are buying, especially with a claim as extraordinary as "Full Self-Driving"

derac 4y ago
Counterargument to myself: Elon sold it with a claim that it would skyrocket the value of the vehicles.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I never did understand how that passed the sniff test. Unleashing a fleet of self driving robotaxis wouldn't skryrocket the value of anything, it would be the fastest race to the bottom in memory.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    That particular aspect passes the sniff test for me. The race would only go so fast with a million cars produced per year, only some of which would be participating.
rootusrootus 4y ago
Maybe we should bring back patent medicines again? New, improved Radithor! If you're unhappy when your jaw falls off, it just means you should have read the fine print.
CPLX 4y ago
Maybe the burden should be on the seller to call it “unfinished and unreliable attempt at self driving” instead? The idea that we don’t let marketers make misleading product claims is very old. As a society our point of view is that no, actually the burden of proof should not be on the customer to figure out if a tube labeled “toothpaste” is actually wet gypsum or something.

ProAm 4y ago

Sounds like fraud.

CPLX 4y ago

It means a car that can drive in a reasonably broad range set if expected traffic conditions and has no failure mode that is unsafe at any point. It’s that second part that is the important one. If the car can’t drive in heavy snow or roadless areas or whatever that’s fine, as long as it’s able to recognize and avoid those situations in a graceful way, like refusing to engage with them and parking in a safe area, suggesting the trip be cancelled, that kind of thing. The current approach of it works, but when it doesn’t it will say “just kidding take over for me now” while going 70mph towards the side of a truck is definitely not that.

hakre 4y ago

> What does “full self driving” sound like to you? Well, that I would be fully self driving the car? ^^

amelius 4y ago
No it means that you have to drive the car with your full self.

ncr100 4y ago

I feel our government should regulate this kind of speech more aggressively, to boost the safety of the public. The messaging by Tesla has been misleading, yes. There have been many other examples of couching date-slippage and over-promises with phrases like "no promises but Cybertruck|FSD|Model 3|Rockets|AI|Robotics|Neural-Link|End-Of-The-World should be here in two years." Announcing a capability, and importantly MUSK acting as a widely-recognized public figure like it's ready - shaming every other fledgling competitor, before it's ready, is amounting to GASLIGHTING. A speculate this is what we should expect from the company-owner's notable, controversial personality type. Immediately upon receiving "Full Self Driving Beta", in the 201x's, some Tesla drivers CRASHED because they turned ON the lane-keep-assist and then left the car to do the driving .. straight into the back of a stopped truck, or a split open lane-divider, and died. To reiterate, this mis-leadership has resulted in death. I suspect that CEO personality-type is a salient factor in whether a company should be allowed to operate. Should we stop this .. should we prevent actual Companies operating? Not just a group of hobbyists but tax-paying, licensed, employing companies. It is OUR government. We can stop this predictable travesty of gaslighting -> good-faith belief -> bad outcomes.

strawhatguy 4y ago
No. I stopped at “the government should…” That never goes the way you think it will.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Advertising claims are in fact regulated. There just isn't a lot of enforcement but, at normal companies, legal teams are very conservative about making claims in advertising and marketing materials. If I claim our product is better than Brand X, you'd better believe legal is going to want to see the evidence and probably qualify the statement.
  - philippejara 4y ago
    Indeed false advertising is a thing and it's not legal(depending on where you live ? it is in most of the world that has teslas at least). The government reaching further than going for false advertising is where the slope gp mentioned would come in I assume, and on that I fully agree.

slg 4y ago

Musk is a charlatan, but why do people act like it is common to buy $40k+ cars like picking up some gum in the checkout aisle? What the features name sounds like is not the only factor here. People don’t buys cars with that lack of thought. What the salespeople say, what the marketing material says, what the manual says, what the CEO says in public, what the feature feels like during a test drive should all matter more. This isn’t a defense of Tesla. I think it still leaves an argument for fraud, but we really need a better argument than the same “the name sounds misleading when you first hear it” argument that has been repeated for years now. If that was all it took, we all would have sued cellphone companies for their “unlimited plans”.

crote 4y ago
This isn't a "9 out of 10 dentists recommend using our product" situation, and cellphone companies have been sued for failing to deliver true unlimited plans. It is being marketed as "Full Self Driving", and the CEO is publicly saying it is "in beta", "coming next year", and "just waiting for regulatory approval". In reality it needs constant driver supervision, is still primitive enough that it is directly linked to multiple fatalities, has been coming "next year" for over 6 years, and is clearly not even remotely finished. Customers have paid thousands of dollars for a feature they are not able to use, half a decade down the line. They may never be able to use it as advertised at all. The product as delivered is substantially different from anything the company says. It's like saying your car can do 0 to 60 in less than ten seconds and then delivering a car without an engine - while putting a statement in the small writing that the car currently only reaches this in freefall from a mountain top, but pinky promise that they will install the engine in a few years.
- slg 4y ago
  Your comment helps prove my point because you didn’t stop at just the name. It takes more than “the name is a misleading” to be considered fraud. Tesla is guilty of more than just giving the feature a bad name. If you are arguing fraud, mention those other things. Because people don’t spend $40k+ based off a name of a feature. I can still go to Verizon’s website today and find “Unlimited” plans so the name clearly wasn’t the problem in whatever lawsuits they might have been involved in. And to reiterate, my point is not that Tesla is innocent. My point is that the most common argument used to point to their guilt is a stupid argument, especially considering there are better arguments available to argue the same underlying point.

haliskerbas 4y ago

Will not crash into stationary objects, bicyclists, pedestrians, or the cars in front of me. Will not randomly halt the car either.

ncallaway 4y ago

Pretending I knew nothing about the levels “full self driving” sounds like it means I could safely nap in the back seat of the car while en route .

mch82 4y ago

To me, “full self driving” has always meant the car has a built-in cab driver so I can work while the car drives to my parents for dinner 6 hours away, then sleep while the car drives me home. I’m not sure how the phrase “full self-driving” could mean anything other than that. Edit: When I pre-ordered a Model 3 Musk’s promise at that time was literally “press a button and your car will work as a taxi to earn money when you’re not using it”.

jcranmer 4y ago
> I’m not sure how the phrase “full self-driving” could mean anything other than that. There is some room to argue about the conditions under which the car can drive itself. If the car couldn't handle a high-grade, winding mountain road with an inch of snow on the ground and yet more coming down, I don't think too many people would be fussed is a "full self-driving" car said "uh, no" (especially as a good fraction of drivers couldn't handle that either). To my end, if the car can't handle any condition that doesn't make me go "I think I should stay home," that should disqualify it.
- newaccount74 4y ago
  Humans often drive in conditions were it's unsafe -- icy roads, dense fog, heavy rain, strong winds. We take the risk, and most times it's okay, except for the occasional pile-up on the highway. But I don't think a "full self-driving" car refusing to drive in those conditions would be a deal breaker. I'd prefer it if autonomous vehicles were more conservative and just refused to drive in unsafe conditions.
  - sameerds 4y ago
    A lot like a git merge, then :)
  - secretsatan 4y ago
    Well then, call it, self driving under perfect conditions but not as a star modifier
  - 4y ago

throw7 4y ago

I know what I want. I want to tell my car to go the the shop and get serviced, come back, and take me home after work. After a flight, have it pick up my inlaws at the baggage claim exit. etc...

wpietri 4y ago

It sounds a lot like something Musk promised in 2019: "Next year for sure, we will have over a million robotaxis on the road," "The fleet wakes up with an over-the-air update. That's all it takes." The most generous interpretation is that Musk is delusional and out of touch with his company and his technology. But I think it is more accurately described as bullshit ("speech intended to persuade without regard for truth") or a lie (making knowingly false statements). I think the interesting question is whether that legally ends up being fraud in the context of a civil suit. Whatever was going on in Musk's head (deluded, reckless, or lying) it seems like Tesla as an entity should have known that the cars were not actually self driving and that customers could reasonably think they were getting self driving.

cwalv 4y ago
> The most generous interpretation is that Musk is delusional and out of touch with his company and his technology. I'm not sure I'd describe that as a generous interpretation, but there is other evidence that he's just wildly optimistic/over-confident. E.g., he still pours significant investment/effort into his project to colonize Mars, even after describing falcon wing doors as "engineering hubris"
- wpietri 4y ago
  It's not a particularly positive interpretation, but because it's the least bad, it's the most generous.

secretsatan 4y ago

Basically, steering wheel is optional, it wasn’t going to happen, it’s been clear for years

6510 4y ago

Getting drunk every day.