6 ms·

I think the opening is what separates this from "not technically lying". By leading the video with "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reas

I think the opening is what separates this from "not technically lying". By leading the video with "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons" when they know for a fact that the vehicle had previously crashed on that exact route with that exact software they have in my mind elevated it to an outright lie.

jefftk 4y ago
I interpret the opening claim as "if it were legal for us to film this without a driver we would have", and I think that's probably true. But while that's reflective of a pretty worrying safety attitude for a car company it's not lying.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > I interpret the opening claim as "if it were legal for us to film this without a driver we would have"..it's not lying. I interpret lying as reclining your body in a horizontal position.
- sidibe 4y ago
  They would not tried that without a driver. I think even Elon has that level of restraint and sense
  - jefftk 4y ago
    I wonder if we're disagreeing on what they thought the odds of an embarrassing incident were or whether those odds would have been acceptable to them? The video is 3:44, and I think doesn't have any bits cut out. I'm guessing that after running the route many times for practice and giving it extra data they could have gotten down to about odds of somewhere around 1:10k. And I think they would have accepted those odds. (I would definitely not accept those odds, and would not want to ride in or near a car made by people who would. I'm glad that the law prevented them from doing runs without a safety driver at that stage. And I don't think they're anywhere near ready to do that today either.)
    - sidibe 4y ago
      > I'm guessing that after running the route many times for practice Why practice? They did the run until it worked well for the video. It wasn't a demo with a live non-Tesla audience. In this case not working 9/10 times is good enough rather than 1/10000
      - jefftk 4y ago
        They did practice, though? The odds I'm talking about are not "it doesn't work as well as the video" but instead "things go horribly wrong in a public way".
        sidibe 4y ago
        There is no reason to think it was better than today's FSD even with those "crutches" (as I believe Elon himself refers to them when talking about other SDC companies), and the chance unsupervised FSD does something horribly wrong in a public way on real streets even in 3.4 miles is far higher than 10000:1 today. After all the car did hit a barrier during the making of this video. I doubt they spent much effort improving the odds when they had infinite takes.
        jefftk 4y ago
        Looking around I see something like 6mi per disengagement [1] which, yes, is unacceptably high. The video is probably about 2mi, which naively would give 1:3. But disengagements have a large amount of precaution, so this isn't an accident rate. And some accidents wouldn't be ones they'd need to be public about, like the one in testing which only came out years later. [1] https://electrek.co/2022/12/14/tesla-full-self-driving-data-awful-challenge-elon-musk-prove-otherwise/ https://electrek.co/2022/12/14/tesla-full-self-driving-data-...
stefan_ 4y ago
Not just crashed, but also: Q. And isn't it true that during the various attempts to generate the video, there were instances in which the person sitting in the seat had to intervene? A. Yes.
wilg 4y ago
The charitable interpretation is "The person in the driver's seat is not interacting with the car in any way in this video".
- enragedcacti 4y ago
  I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation considering the next line is: "He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself" Why say the exact same thing twice? I think its clear Tesla wanted to make a stronger claim than "he happened to not do anything this particular time"

jefftk 4y ago

I interpret the opening claim as "if it were legal for us to film this without a driver we would have", and I think that's probably true. But while that's reflective of a pretty worrying safety attitude for a car company it's not lying.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> I interpret the opening claim as "if it were legal for us to film this without a driver we would have"..it's not lying. I interpret lying as reclining your body in a horizontal position.
sidibe 4y ago
They would not tried that without a driver. I think even Elon has that level of restraint and sense
- jefftk 4y ago
  I wonder if we're disagreeing on what they thought the odds of an embarrassing incident were or whether those odds would have been acceptable to them? The video is 3:44, and I think doesn't have any bits cut out. I'm guessing that after running the route many times for practice and giving it extra data they could have gotten down to about odds of somewhere around 1:10k. And I think they would have accepted those odds. (I would definitely not accept those odds, and would not want to ride in or near a car made by people who would. I'm glad that the law prevented them from doing runs without a safety driver at that stage. And I don't think they're anywhere near ready to do that today either.)
  - sidibe 4y ago
    > I'm guessing that after running the route many times for practice Why practice? They did the run until it worked well for the video. It wasn't a demo with a live non-Tesla audience. In this case not working 9/10 times is good enough rather than 1/10000
    - jefftk 4y ago
      They did practice, though? The odds I'm talking about are not "it doesn't work as well as the video" but instead "things go horribly wrong in a public way".
      - sidibe 4y ago
        There is no reason to think it was better than today's FSD even with those "crutches" (as I believe Elon himself refers to them when talking about other SDC companies), and the chance unsupervised FSD does something horribly wrong in a public way on real streets even in 3.4 miles is far higher than 10000:1 today. After all the car did hit a barrier during the making of this video. I doubt they spent much effort improving the odds when they had infinite takes.
        jefftk 4y ago
        Looking around I see something like 6mi per disengagement [1] which, yes, is unacceptably high. The video is probably about 2mi, which naively would give 1:3. But disengagements have a large amount of precaution, so this isn't an accident rate. And some accidents wouldn't be ones they'd need to be public about, like the one in testing which only came out years later. [1] https://electrek.co/2022/12/14/tesla-full-self-driving-data-awful-challenge-elon-musk-prove-otherwise/ https://electrek.co/2022/12/14/tesla-full-self-driving-data-...

stefan_ 4y ago

Not just crashed, but also: Q. And isn't it true that during the various attempts to generate the video, there were instances in which the person sitting in the seat had to intervene? A. Yes.

wilg 4y ago

The charitable interpretation is "The person in the driver's seat is not interacting with the car in any way in this video".

enragedcacti 4y ago
I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation considering the next line is: "He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself" Why say the exact same thing twice? I think its clear Tesla wanted to make a stronger claim than "he happened to not do anything this particular time"