4 ms·

Predicting when an algorithmic problem will be solved is a fools game. I don’t think Musk was intending to deceive with FSD, he’s just wildly over optimistic an

by valine 3y ago

Predicting when an algorithmic problem will be solved is a fools game. I don’t think Musk was intending to deceive with FSD, he’s just wildly over optimistic and partially blinded by the financial upside. That being said, just because they have repeatedly failed to predict when “FSD” will be solved, doesn’t mean they aren’t making progress. I’ve been very happy with their latest v11 release, it’s drives so freaking smoothly on the highway.

clouddrover 3y ago
> I don’t think Musk was intending to deceive with FSD, he’s just wildly over optimistic When he does it year after year after year it's no longer "optimism", it's just bullshit and lies.
ra7 3y ago
You can’t be “wildly over optimistic” for 8 years in a row. That’s just called lying and deliberately misleading, especially when financial upside is involved.
- valine 3y ago
  I’d agree if it was a grift if Tesla was sitting on their hands and not making progress. Eight years really isn’t that long when it comes to solving hard problems. Tesla has a long attention span, and personally I think that’s a virtue which significantly increases their odds of success.
  - ra7 3y ago
    > Eight years really isn’t that long when it comes to solving hard problems. I agree. But it seems Tesla and Musk don’t. Because Musk said in 2016 that autonomy is a “solved problem” and has been saying every year that they will have FSD by the end of the year.
    - simondotau 3y ago
      Yes, Musk said that in 2016. In 2016, Uber predicted it was just a few years away.[0] In 2012, Google predicted driverless cars for all by 2017.[1] In 2015, BMW predicted we'd have driverless cars by 2020.[2] In 2016, industry analysts and self driving experts predicted 2019.[3] [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-interview-on-self-driving-cars-future-driver-jobs-2016-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-interview-on... [1] https://www.theregister.com/2012/09/25/google_automatic_cars_legal https://www.theregister.com/2012/09/25/google_automatic_cars... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/13/self-driving-cars-bmw-google-2020-driving https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/13/self-driv... [3] https://www.businessinsider.com/report-10-million-self-driving-cars-will-be-on-the-road-by-2020-2015-5-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/report-10-million-self-drivi...
      - ra7 3y ago
        The difference is they didn’t take money from customers to deliver a promise at a future date.
        simondotau 3y ago
        Companies make claims about the future for many reasons, not all of which involve direct cash payment from customers. BMW wanted press coverage that showed them as on the pulse of advanced technology. Perception influences brand associations and car purchase decisions.
        ra7 3y ago
        It's not the same as repeatedly promising delivery of the feature — one of the hardest technological problems being worked on — year after year, while continuing to take money from customers for said feature. Not to mention gaining a ton of positive coverage for the company that enables sales and stock appreciation.
        clouddrover 3y ago
        > Companies make claims about the future for many reasons Here is Tesla lying about the FSD capabilities of the cars they were putting on the road in 2016: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-self-driving-hardware https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now... Show me a similar lie from another car company about their production vehicles.
  - steveBK123 3y ago
    They are collecting up to $15k/car for 8 years selling software bound to cars that likely will never be able to FSD in their useful lifespans. So yes it's a grift. If this was a free beta, or a $1000 option, sure. But this thing is a double-digit % of price add on to these cars. It is being aggressively marketed & sold for years while it can't actually deliver on those promises.
d23 3y ago
> I don’t think Musk was intending to deceive with FSD If it were an outlier event, sure. But his entire motive seems to be to deceive; he's pathologically disingenuous. He has not earned the benefit of the doubt.

by valine 3y ago

clouddrover 3y ago

> I don’t think Musk was intending to deceive with FSD, he’s just wildly over optimistic When he does it year after year after year it's no longer "optimism", it's just bullshit and lies.

ra7 3y ago

You can’t be “wildly over optimistic” for 8 years in a row. That’s just called lying and deliberately misleading, especially when financial upside is involved.

valine 3y ago
I’d agree if it was a grift if Tesla was sitting on their hands and not making progress. Eight years really isn’t that long when it comes to solving hard problems. Tesla has a long attention span, and personally I think that’s a virtue which significantly increases their odds of success.
- ra7 3y ago
  > Eight years really isn’t that long when it comes to solving hard problems. I agree. But it seems Tesla and Musk don’t. Because Musk said in 2016 that autonomy is a “solved problem” and has been saying every year that they will have FSD by the end of the year.
  - simondotau 3y ago
    Yes, Musk said that in 2016. In 2016, Uber predicted it was just a few years away.[0] In 2012, Google predicted driverless cars for all by 2017.[1] In 2015, BMW predicted we'd have driverless cars by 2020.[2] In 2016, industry analysts and self driving experts predicted 2019.[3] [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-interview-on-self-driving-cars-future-driver-jobs-2016-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-interview-on... [1] https://www.theregister.com/2012/09/25/google_automatic_cars_legal https://www.theregister.com/2012/09/25/google_automatic_cars... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/13/self-driving-cars-bmw-google-2020-driving https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/13/self-driv... [3] https://www.businessinsider.com/report-10-million-self-driving-cars-will-be-on-the-road-by-2020-2015-5-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/report-10-million-self-drivi...
    - ra7 3y ago
      The difference is they didn’t take money from customers to deliver a promise at a future date.
      - simondotau 3y ago
        Companies make claims about the future for many reasons, not all of which involve direct cash payment from customers. BMW wanted press coverage that showed them as on the pulse of advanced technology. Perception influences brand associations and car purchase decisions.
        ra7 3y ago
        It's not the same as repeatedly promising delivery of the feature — one of the hardest technological problems being worked on — year after year, while continuing to take money from customers for said feature. Not to mention gaining a ton of positive coverage for the company that enables sales and stock appreciation.
        clouddrover 3y ago
        > Companies make claims about the future for many reasons Here is Tesla lying about the FSD capabilities of the cars they were putting on the road in 2016: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-self-driving-hardware https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now... Show me a similar lie from another car company about their production vehicles.
- steveBK123 3y ago
  They are collecting up to $15k/car for 8 years selling software bound to cars that likely will never be able to FSD in their useful lifespans. So yes it's a grift. If this was a free beta, or a $1000 option, sure. But this thing is a double-digit % of price add on to these cars. It is being aggressively marketed & sold for years while it can't actually deliver on those promises.

d23 3y ago

> I don’t think Musk was intending to deceive with FSD If it were an outlier event, sure. But his entire motive seems to be to deceive; he's pathologically disingenuous. He has not earned the benefit of the doubt.