4 ms·

I really don't understand how Musk gets away with egregious fraud. I feel like we've become desensitized to it, but that doesn't make it ok. There is an enormou

I really don't understand how Musk gets away with egregious fraud. I feel like we've become desensitized to it, but that doesn't make it ok. There is an enormous difference between a robitaxi and a car with partial self driving capabilities. Part of the premise seems to be that you could actually use the car as a robotaxi for supplemental income but it is increasingly clear that will almost certainly not happen with software updates alone and definitely not on the time scale he promised, which is already long past. I really don't understand why claims like this are legal.

rkagerer 3y ago
I really don't understand why claims like this are legal. There have been some civil lawsuits. IIRC Tesla settled in some cases (though not sure the amounts were substantial), others (including a potential class action) got snagged by the arbitration clause most customers don't bother to opt out of. The statute of limitations had expired in one instance. I'm surprised a group of purchasers didn't go after the company more aggressively, but I think most Tesla owners love their cars despite them not living up to the hype.
- hansvm 3y ago
  > but I think most Tesla owners love their cars despite them not living up to the hype. Just last night, a friend was arguing that Tesla is a good investment (maybe it is, for now, I'm not going to judge) _because_ of its full-self-driving capabilities and all the tech going into that. I disagreed for a number of reasons, but the thing I highlighted at the end is that I've met a lot of people who like their Teslas, and not one of them made the decision because of FSD or even highlighted it as one of their top-10 favorite differentiating features. There's obviously a sampling bias at play in that survey, but I don't think if Tesla completely shut down the FSD efforts they'd have a dramatically different customer base; FSD is intended to impress a different crowd from the actual buyers and drivers.
  - darkstar_16 3y ago
    Agree. I’m a Tesla owner and I bought it only for the super charger network. Living in Europe, every country I travel to can have different charging networks and so the Tesla network is one of the few that lets me drive on road trips without a worry. I don’t care about FSD.
  - SvenL 3y ago
    Exactly, I brought the model y not because of FSD - actually I couldn’t care less about it. I brought it because of the range it can drive, interior space and space in trunk, Tesla phone app and supercharger network (and more stuff). I won’t care if they shutdown FSD.
postmeta 3y ago
The CEO's forward looking vision statements are not the same as spec sheets or a product user manual. The website never said robotaxi. The manual never said robotaxi. The app never said robotaxi. The CEO thinks it can be a robotaxi at some point in the future pending regulatory approval. (he has said it many times) How is it illegal for the CEO to have a vision for the future of the product?
- saghm 3y ago
  > How is it illegal for the CEO to have a vision for the future of the product? It's not, but naming your product to intentionally mislead people into thinking that it's the present of the product is
- BoorishBears 3y ago
  It was literally called "Full Self-Driving".
- threeseed 3y ago
  Tesla hasn't used the term robotaxi in official material. But they do regularly use the term "full self driving" which it definitely does not do.
  - Grustaf 3y ago
    I suppose you could argue that as long as the car is doing the driving, it is in fact full self driving, even if you have to watch it?
    - almost_usual 3y ago
      By that definition any car with cruise control is “full self driving”.
      - ta8645 3y ago
        I don't have a dog in this fight, but cruise control doesn't turn off the highway, drive down surface streets, obey streetlights and signs, and navigate you home on its own.
brandonagr2 3y ago
Why do you think having a vision and working towards it is fraud?
- saghm 3y ago
  Why do you think that "having a vision and working towards it" necessitates naming the product as if the vision already exists _today_? If you don't think that it does, why are you intentionally trying to derail the discussion by ignoring the actual thing that people are criticizing?
  - dzhiurgis 3y ago
    If we down to naming things - my Apple products are inedible, AI personal assistants do not assist in most cases, footlong subs are 6”, SuperCruise is SomeplaceCruise…
    - saghm 3y ago
      Let's not pretend that naming a computer "Macintosh" but it not being edible and calling a car "full self-driving" that can't self-drive fully are equally confusing. One of them is inaccurate about a purpose that no one actually intends to use it for, and the other is inaccurate about a purpose that people do actually want to use it for, and they're paying for it because it sounds like it fulfills tht purpose.
  - scotty79 3y ago
    My brain read _today_ in the voice of Elon Musk.
- mey 3y ago
  Selling something that doesn't exist is fraud.
  - dzhiurgis 3y ago
    Booo hooo Mr BeyondMeat TotalCommander
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
clhodapp 3y ago
The existence of real, honest-to-goodness commercial robotaxi service, being offered by other companies makes the deception even more clear: The actual thing exists and it looks nothing like Tesla's offering.
m463 3y ago
I believe the bigger problem is that the tesla models are increasingly being designed in a way that makes it harder for the driver to directly control the car. Newer tesla cars are removing or degrading critical controls. The ability to turn on defrost, use the turn signals, shift into forward or reverse, neutral or reverse is all being hobbled by cost-cutting controls. There is no shift lever (car guesses) and there are no turn signal/light/wiper stalks. Some functions have buttons on the steering wheel, which rotates and moves the buttons. Defrost and other critical controls are on the touchscreen and it has gotten harder to reach out and access controls with each new model. (and I am someone who likes tesla)
- t888 3y ago
  Shift lever? Tesla’s don’t have a multi-speed transmission. What are you talking about?
  - somerandomqaguy 3y ago
    Shift lever as in Park, Reverse, Neutral, and Drive.
    - t888 3y ago
      Why is it so important those controls be on a lever? It’s not the only car to put them somewhere else?
      - akerl_ 3y ago
        It's pretty much the only car that puts them on the touch screen, yea.
      - paulryanrogers 3y ago
        As long as they are physical controls that a person can find and operate while focusing on where they're trying to go. Levers are familiar to hundreds of millions, so that's a safe bet. Changing it without good reason is unwise. Using touch screens that require visual inspection is irresponsible.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
Funnily "autopilot" is pretty much the closest term to an accurate description for cruise control. Unfortunately consumers have different expectations for an "autopilot" than real life. Real life aviation autopilots are much much dumber and simplistic than the whole deep learning world models control systems setup they have running because pilots in planes have to continuously monitor the avionics and radio, everything is controlled down to a T. It's definitely disingenuous of Tesla to exploit the two different interpretations of the word here.
- lloeki 3y ago
  Heh that's correct, for the earliest/longest time "autopilot" in aircraft meant "maintain constant airspeed + attitude (with later bonus points for bearing and altitude)" so technically the automotive equivalent would really be cruise control + lane keeping. Ironically in happy conditions there's much more leeway in an airborne craft for the autopilot to make the occasional mistake: you don't really run out of air if AP misses the mark by a few degs for a few seconds, whereas on ground you'll quickly run out of road. In a way flight mode normal law is closer to autopilot than to actual direct mode piloting. So "autopilot" would be technically correct, although piloting in automotive has a significantly different meaning than in aircraft, I mean pilots are for racing... But anyways even if technically correct "auto" is sadly misunderstood as "human do nothing" which is untrue... "self driving" though is a downright lie, "full self driving" is a tautology, as there can not be such a thing as "partial self driving: either a thing drives itself or it does not! (and as of today no automotive vehicle does). "supervised full self driving" has to be the most obscure, convoluted, and oxymoronic way to say "autopilot".
  - KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
    They should make every potential tesla buyer spend a few hours in a Skyhawk before buying an "autopilot" enabled car. The buyers are all more than rich enough to afford aviation.
TheAlchemist 3y ago
What will be interesting, now that they change the language, is how charlatans like ARK Invest adjust their models, where they were and still probably are projecting hundreds of billions (or trillions, hard to count the zeros) of profits from robotaxis fleets and god know what else. As to why it's legal - it's only in North America - it's forbidden everywhere else.

rkagerer 3y ago

I really don't understand why claims like this are legal. There have been some civil lawsuits. IIRC Tesla settled in some cases (though not sure the amounts were substantial), others (including a potential class action) got snagged by the arbitration clause most customers don't bother to opt out of. The statute of limitations had expired in one instance. I'm surprised a group of purchasers didn't go after the company more aggressively, but I think most Tesla owners love their cars despite them not living up to the hype.

hansvm 3y ago
> but I think most Tesla owners love their cars despite them not living up to the hype. Just last night, a friend was arguing that Tesla is a good investment (maybe it is, for now, I'm not going to judge) _because_ of its full-self-driving capabilities and all the tech going into that. I disagreed for a number of reasons, but the thing I highlighted at the end is that I've met a lot of people who like their Teslas, and not one of them made the decision because of FSD or even highlighted it as one of their top-10 favorite differentiating features. There's obviously a sampling bias at play in that survey, but I don't think if Tesla completely shut down the FSD efforts they'd have a dramatically different customer base; FSD is intended to impress a different crowd from the actual buyers and drivers.
- darkstar_16 3y ago
  Agree. I’m a Tesla owner and I bought it only for the super charger network. Living in Europe, every country I travel to can have different charging networks and so the Tesla network is one of the few that lets me drive on road trips without a worry. I don’t care about FSD.
- SvenL 3y ago
  Exactly, I brought the model y not because of FSD - actually I couldn’t care less about it. I brought it because of the range it can drive, interior space and space in trunk, Tesla phone app and supercharger network (and more stuff). I won’t care if they shutdown FSD.

postmeta 3y ago

The CEO's forward looking vision statements are not the same as spec sheets or a product user manual. The website never said robotaxi. The manual never said robotaxi. The app never said robotaxi. The CEO thinks it can be a robotaxi at some point in the future pending regulatory approval. (he has said it many times) How is it illegal for the CEO to have a vision for the future of the product?

saghm 3y ago
> How is it illegal for the CEO to have a vision for the future of the product? It's not, but naming your product to intentionally mislead people into thinking that it's the present of the product is
BoorishBears 3y ago
It was literally called "Full Self-Driving".
threeseed 3y ago
Tesla hasn't used the term robotaxi in official material. But they do regularly use the term "full self driving" which it definitely does not do.
- Grustaf 3y ago
  I suppose you could argue that as long as the car is doing the driving, it is in fact full self driving, even if you have to watch it?
  - almost_usual 3y ago
    By that definition any car with cruise control is “full self driving”.
    - ta8645 3y ago
      I don't have a dog in this fight, but cruise control doesn't turn off the highway, drive down surface streets, obey streetlights and signs, and navigate you home on its own.

brandonagr2 3y ago

Why do you think having a vision and working towards it is fraud?

saghm 3y ago
Why do you think that "having a vision and working towards it" necessitates naming the product as if the vision already exists _today_? If you don't think that it does, why are you intentionally trying to derail the discussion by ignoring the actual thing that people are criticizing?
- dzhiurgis 3y ago
  If we down to naming things - my Apple products are inedible, AI personal assistants do not assist in most cases, footlong subs are 6”, SuperCruise is SomeplaceCruise…
  - saghm 3y ago
    Let's not pretend that naming a computer "Macintosh" but it not being edible and calling a car "full self-driving" that can't self-drive fully are equally confusing. One of them is inaccurate about a purpose that no one actually intends to use it for, and the other is inaccurate about a purpose that people do actually want to use it for, and they're paying for it because it sounds like it fulfills tht purpose.
- scotty79 3y ago
  My brain read _today_ in the voice of Elon Musk.
mey 3y ago
Selling something that doesn't exist is fraud.
- dzhiurgis 3y ago
  Booo hooo Mr BeyondMeat TotalCommander

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

clhodapp 3y ago

The existence of real, honest-to-goodness commercial robotaxi service, being offered by other companies makes the deception even more clear: The actual thing exists and it looks nothing like Tesla's offering.

m463 3y ago

I believe the bigger problem is that the tesla models are increasingly being designed in a way that makes it harder for the driver to directly control the car. Newer tesla cars are removing or degrading critical controls. The ability to turn on defrost, use the turn signals, shift into forward or reverse, neutral or reverse is all being hobbled by cost-cutting controls. There is no shift lever (car guesses) and there are no turn signal/light/wiper stalks. Some functions have buttons on the steering wheel, which rotates and moves the buttons. Defrost and other critical controls are on the touchscreen and it has gotten harder to reach out and access controls with each new model. (and I am someone who likes tesla)

t888 3y ago
Shift lever? Tesla’s don’t have a multi-speed transmission. What are you talking about?
- somerandomqaguy 3y ago
  Shift lever as in Park, Reverse, Neutral, and Drive.
  - t888 3y ago
    Why is it so important those controls be on a lever? It’s not the only car to put them somewhere else?
    - akerl_ 3y ago
      It's pretty much the only car that puts them on the touch screen, yea.
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      As long as they are physical controls that a person can find and operate while focusing on where they're trying to go. Levers are familiar to hundreds of millions, so that's a safe bet. Changing it without good reason is unwise. Using touch screens that require visual inspection is irresponsible.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago

Funnily "autopilot" is pretty much the closest term to an accurate description for cruise control. Unfortunately consumers have different expectations for an "autopilot" than real life. Real life aviation autopilots are much much dumber and simplistic than the whole deep learning world models control systems setup they have running because pilots in planes have to continuously monitor the avionics and radio, everything is controlled down to a T. It's definitely disingenuous of Tesla to exploit the two different interpretations of the word here.

lloeki 3y ago
Heh that's correct, for the earliest/longest time "autopilot" in aircraft meant "maintain constant airspeed + attitude (with later bonus points for bearing and altitude)" so technically the automotive equivalent would really be cruise control + lane keeping. Ironically in happy conditions there's much more leeway in an airborne craft for the autopilot to make the occasional mistake: you don't really run out of air if AP misses the mark by a few degs for a few seconds, whereas on ground you'll quickly run out of road. In a way flight mode normal law is closer to autopilot than to actual direct mode piloting. So "autopilot" would be technically correct, although piloting in automotive has a significantly different meaning than in aircraft, I mean pilots are for racing... But anyways even if technically correct "auto" is sadly misunderstood as "human do nothing" which is untrue... "self driving" though is a downright lie, "full self driving" is a tautology, as there can not be such a thing as "partial self driving: either a thing drives itself or it does not! (and as of today no automotive vehicle does). "supervised full self driving" has to be the most obscure, convoluted, and oxymoronic way to say "autopilot".
- KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
  They should make every potential tesla buyer spend a few hours in a Skyhawk before buying an "autopilot" enabled car. The buyers are all more than rich enough to afford aviation.

TheAlchemist 3y ago

What will be interesting, now that they change the language, is how charlatans like ARK Invest adjust their models, where they were and still probably are projecting hundreds of billions (or trillions, hard to count the zeros) of profits from robotaxis fleets and god know what else. As to why it's legal - it's only in North America - it's forbidden everywhere else.