5 ms·

What the name implies if interpreted without any context pales in comparison to the repeated and explicit instructions and warnings given to the driver that cla

What the name implies if interpreted without any context pales in comparison to the repeated and explicit instructions and warnings given to the driver that clarify that the driver should always be in control.

toss1 2y ago
Yup. It's "we'll take the profits from selling it as something that it is not.". While simultaneously they take every step to ensure that when things go wrong when it inevitably turns out to NOT be what they claimed, the entire burden and responsibility is not on them, but on you.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  More conspiracy theories. The driver assist disengaging had nothing to do with a ploy by Tesla to shift responsibility. A driver taking control of the car 0.1s before impact is a result of inattentive driving. Like I said in the other comment: There is absolutely no other company in the world where a predictable and disclosed shortcoming of the driver assist combined with the failure of the driver to fulfill their responsibility to be in control, would be blamed on the driver assist program. Both Musk and Tesla are far from perfect, but the lengths that people go to to attack them is obviously agenda-driven and a result of emotions
  - toss1 2y ago
    >>conspiracy theories ... agenda-driven and a result of emotions No, not even close, dead wrong spurious insults. For many years, I held Musk in very high regard, and you can find I've even posted extensive defenses of him here on HN. My changed views are a direct result of observed behavior. No, the fact that the driver assist disengages is NOT what I am pointing to as the attempt to shift responsibility. Tesla is selling and loudly insisting that they can use the term "Full Self-Driving". Tesla advertises and charges(ed?) 5-figure-USD amounts for fully autonomous self-driving capabilities that would allow the cars to be used in competition with Uber/Lift but without drivers. This money was charged for features that were supposed to be available in the previous decade. Yet now, in the middle of the 2020s, there are no such features available. Moreover, they are so far from delivering such features that your argument is that any accident is fully the fault of driver attention being less than 100%. So, clearly, the features related to "Full Self Driving" or "FSD" do not exist. Moreover, everything about the actual implementation, including instructions to be always vigilant, UI warnings about no hands on the steering wheel/yoke, alerts to re-engage, auto-disconnect, live data collection so Tesla can prove what mode was engaged, what level of control, etc., etc., etc. all point to the requirement for the DRIVER TO BE FULLY ENGAGED. They also ensure that the situation is such that if the driver fails to be fully engaged, it is the driver's fault/responsibility. When the driver MUST BE fully engaged (as you argue and I just documented), the car is NOT "Fully Self-Driving". The two conditions are by definition mutually exclusive. The fact that Tesla is trying to have it both ways is exactly as I said: They want the profits from the false advertising that it is "Fully Self-Driving", but ensure that when it turns out to be false, all consequences are on the customer. There's nothing emotional about that fact pattern. I've even said above, that I think it'd be perfectly OK for Tesla to say "Self-Driving" as that does not directly imply that you can fully disengage because the FAD is "Fully" engaged. I'm not the only one who thinks that language means something, even though Musk does not, and you think that calling out a blatant lie and possible fraud must be emotional. Sorry for the length, if I'd had more time, I'd have written a shorter post
    - ETH_start 2y ago
      Your views on Musk changed precisely when everyone else's did, when he started challenging the establishment on critical points, like their support for rampant censorship of Twitter and other social media sites (e.g. removing the Hunter Biden story before the election and permanently banning users if they used certain gender pronoun conventions). No one who drives a Tesla thinks that the driver assist features are intended to or capable of autonomous driving. The naming, whatever you may think of it, is massively overrided by the strongly worded warnings and instructions that are abundantly and repeatedly displayed to the driver, that effectively and unambiguously convey to the driver that they must be engaged while using the driver assist features. If you want to criticize the naming for being inaccurate even if they argue it's intended to be a forwarding looking statement of aspirations, I would accept that criticism as arguably justified. But that the driver is fully aware of their responsibilities is beyond any doubt. Blaming Tesla for its autopilot disengaging 0.1s before impact in a number of accidents is therefore unjustified.
      - toss1 2y ago
        >>Your views on Musk changed precisely when everyone else's did NO they did not. If I was like you, I'd over-generalize and say that "you are just like every other right-wing nutter who only believes a limited view of the world and must slam any other view, regardless of how disconneced from the facts..." But I won't. I'll explain that my view changed when Musk went from delivering as much or more than he claimed, as was the case with early SpaceX and Tesla. to massively over-promising and under-delivering, e.g., now nearly a decade late on his FSD, so late on Starship that his first cricumlunar customer already bailed, making inflated promises about AI, lying about OpenAI, delivering Cybertruck a half-decade late and with crappy quality, etc., etc., etc. One particular turning point was when he argued about software engineering in public with one of Twitter's lead engineers, and it was obvious to me (with some background in commercial software) that Musk was nothing but bluster and bullshit; it became clear he is not a master engineer, he's a master manipulator. I have far less respect for the latter. As you can see, it has absolutely zero to do with whatever 'anti-establishment' carp you are ranting on about. But you seem to enjoy your fact-free life more, so carry on.
  - Dah00n 2y ago
    the lengths that people go to to defend them is obviously agenda-driven and a result of emotions
    - ETH_start 2y ago
      I only go to great lengths because I can see that the attacks are driven by an agenda that is not impartial. And I've articulated why I think that in this case.
mynameisvlad 2y ago
You don’t just get a pass, especially not when you actively are promoting it as soon™ being able to drive you without any input whatsoever. Robotaxis and the like have been promised for years now, it’s not like Tesla isn’t actively claiming the technology is basically around the corner. In short, saying it’s “Full Self Driving (Supervised)” is not really enough.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  You get a pass because nobody who drives a Tesla can reasonably believe the vehicle can drive itself. That it can't fully drive itself is fully and adequately disclosed.
  - toss1 2y ago
    So, what is the difference between your argument and this more concise version? The falsehood of the "Full Self-Driving" claims are generally known to existing customers, therefore it is ok to lie to new customers.
    - ETH_start 2y ago
      I'm challenging the original comment, which blames Tesla for accidents caused by drivers being inattentive. The name of the driver assist program even if inaccurate, did not mislead any of those drivers, as any driver who uses these features is amply informed/warned that the features do not provide autonomous driving and don't obviate the requirement of the driver to remain fully engaged at all time.
      - toss1 2y ago
        Since your core point is that Tesla requires drivers to be fully engaged 100% or the time, it is an odd way to challenge someone blaming Tesla by responding to me pointing out that Tesla's advertising is fundamentally dishonest. Tesla are trying to have it both ways. They ADVERTISE and promote that it is "FULL Self-Driving" and "FSD", while simultaneously doing everything post-sale to ensure the driver is responsible for failures of FSD. I wasn't originally in that camp, but your arguments are convincing me that Tesla does in fact bear some responsibility for the crashes, despite the facts you point out that Tesla post-sale promotes driver attention. Despite all Tesla's efforts towards driver attention, Tesla ALSO broadcasts conflicting messages which do give the impression that FSD is more capable and safe than it is. What percent responsible? I don't know, but I think it's above 5%, especially for new drivers, who have been more exposed to the sales pitch and less to the documentation.

toss1 2y ago

Yup. It's "we'll take the profits from selling it as something that it is not.". While simultaneously they take every step to ensure that when things go wrong when it inevitably turns out to NOT be what they claimed, the entire burden and responsibility is not on them, but on you.

ETH_start 2y ago
More conspiracy theories. The driver assist disengaging had nothing to do with a ploy by Tesla to shift responsibility. A driver taking control of the car 0.1s before impact is a result of inattentive driving. Like I said in the other comment: There is absolutely no other company in the world where a predictable and disclosed shortcoming of the driver assist combined with the failure of the driver to fulfill their responsibility to be in control, would be blamed on the driver assist program. Both Musk and Tesla are far from perfect, but the lengths that people go to to attack them is obviously agenda-driven and a result of emotions
- toss1 2y ago
  >>conspiracy theories ... agenda-driven and a result of emotions No, not even close, dead wrong spurious insults. For many years, I held Musk in very high regard, and you can find I've even posted extensive defenses of him here on HN. My changed views are a direct result of observed behavior. No, the fact that the driver assist disengages is NOT what I am pointing to as the attempt to shift responsibility. Tesla is selling and loudly insisting that they can use the term "Full Self-Driving". Tesla advertises and charges(ed?) 5-figure-USD amounts for fully autonomous self-driving capabilities that would allow the cars to be used in competition with Uber/Lift but without drivers. This money was charged for features that were supposed to be available in the previous decade. Yet now, in the middle of the 2020s, there are no such features available. Moreover, they are so far from delivering such features that your argument is that any accident is fully the fault of driver attention being less than 100%. So, clearly, the features related to "Full Self Driving" or "FSD" do not exist. Moreover, everything about the actual implementation, including instructions to be always vigilant, UI warnings about no hands on the steering wheel/yoke, alerts to re-engage, auto-disconnect, live data collection so Tesla can prove what mode was engaged, what level of control, etc., etc., etc. all point to the requirement for the DRIVER TO BE FULLY ENGAGED. They also ensure that the situation is such that if the driver fails to be fully engaged, it is the driver's fault/responsibility. When the driver MUST BE fully engaged (as you argue and I just documented), the car is NOT "Fully Self-Driving". The two conditions are by definition mutually exclusive. The fact that Tesla is trying to have it both ways is exactly as I said: They want the profits from the false advertising that it is "Fully Self-Driving", but ensure that when it turns out to be false, all consequences are on the customer. There's nothing emotional about that fact pattern. I've even said above, that I think it'd be perfectly OK for Tesla to say "Self-Driving" as that does not directly imply that you can fully disengage because the FAD is "Fully" engaged. I'm not the only one who thinks that language means something, even though Musk does not, and you think that calling out a blatant lie and possible fraud must be emotional. Sorry for the length, if I'd had more time, I'd have written a shorter post
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    Your views on Musk changed precisely when everyone else's did, when he started challenging the establishment on critical points, like their support for rampant censorship of Twitter and other social media sites (e.g. removing the Hunter Biden story before the election and permanently banning users if they used certain gender pronoun conventions). No one who drives a Tesla thinks that the driver assist features are intended to or capable of autonomous driving. The naming, whatever you may think of it, is massively overrided by the strongly worded warnings and instructions that are abundantly and repeatedly displayed to the driver, that effectively and unambiguously convey to the driver that they must be engaged while using the driver assist features. If you want to criticize the naming for being inaccurate even if they argue it's intended to be a forwarding looking statement of aspirations, I would accept that criticism as arguably justified. But that the driver is fully aware of their responsibilities is beyond any doubt. Blaming Tesla for its autopilot disengaging 0.1s before impact in a number of accidents is therefore unjustified.
    - toss1 2y ago
      >>Your views on Musk changed precisely when everyone else's did NO they did not. If I was like you, I'd over-generalize and say that "you are just like every other right-wing nutter who only believes a limited view of the world and must slam any other view, regardless of how disconneced from the facts..." But I won't. I'll explain that my view changed when Musk went from delivering as much or more than he claimed, as was the case with early SpaceX and Tesla. to massively over-promising and under-delivering, e.g., now nearly a decade late on his FSD, so late on Starship that his first cricumlunar customer already bailed, making inflated promises about AI, lying about OpenAI, delivering Cybertruck a half-decade late and with crappy quality, etc., etc., etc. One particular turning point was when he argued about software engineering in public with one of Twitter's lead engineers, and it was obvious to me (with some background in commercial software) that Musk was nothing but bluster and bullshit; it became clear he is not a master engineer, he's a master manipulator. I have far less respect for the latter. As you can see, it has absolutely zero to do with whatever 'anti-establishment' carp you are ranting on about. But you seem to enjoy your fact-free life more, so carry on.
- Dah00n 2y ago
  the lengths that people go to to defend them is obviously agenda-driven and a result of emotions
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    I only go to great lengths because I can see that the attacks are driven by an agenda that is not impartial. And I've articulated why I think that in this case.

mynameisvlad 2y ago

You don’t just get a pass, especially not when you actively are promoting it as soon™ being able to drive you without any input whatsoever. Robotaxis and the like have been promised for years now, it’s not like Tesla isn’t actively claiming the technology is basically around the corner. In short, saying it’s “Full Self Driving (Supervised)” is not really enough.

ETH_start 2y ago
You get a pass because nobody who drives a Tesla can reasonably believe the vehicle can drive itself. That it can't fully drive itself is fully and adequately disclosed.
- toss1 2y ago
  So, what is the difference between your argument and this more concise version? The falsehood of the "Full Self-Driving" claims are generally known to existing customers, therefore it is ok to lie to new customers.
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    I'm challenging the original comment, which blames Tesla for accidents caused by drivers being inattentive. The name of the driver assist program even if inaccurate, did not mislead any of those drivers, as any driver who uses these features is amply informed/warned that the features do not provide autonomous driving and don't obviate the requirement of the driver to remain fully engaged at all time.
    - toss1 2y ago
      Since your core point is that Tesla requires drivers to be fully engaged 100% or the time, it is an odd way to challenge someone blaming Tesla by responding to me pointing out that Tesla's advertising is fundamentally dishonest. Tesla are trying to have it both ways. They ADVERTISE and promote that it is "FULL Self-Driving" and "FSD", while simultaneously doing everything post-sale to ensure the driver is responsible for failures of FSD. I wasn't originally in that camp, but your arguments are convincing me that Tesla does in fact bear some responsibility for the crashes, despite the facts you point out that Tesla post-sale promotes driver attention. Despite all Tesla's efforts towards driver attention, Tesla ALSO broadcasts conflicting messages which do give the impression that FSD is more capable and safe than it is. What percent responsible? I don't know, but I think it's above 5%, especially for new drivers, who have been more exposed to the sales pitch and less to the documentation.