I agree, it's an obviously deceptive headline. More accurate would be "...were (partly) controlled by humans." That would have gotten them fewer clicks though,

I agree, it's an obviously deceptive headline. More accurate would be "...were (partly) controlled by humans." That would have gotten them fewer clicks though, presumably... Even in the article: "Another robot — or the human voicing it — told an attendee in a stilted impression of a synthetic voice, “Today, I am assisted by a human,” adding that it’s not fully autonomous. (The voice stumbled on the word “autonomous.”)" So it seems Tesla were being fairly transparent about what was going on, and ironically it's this article chiding Tesla for being deceptive that is deceptive. It comes across as a desperate reach to be critical: why say a "stilted impression" of a synthetic voice? As opposed to a mellifluous and natural impression of a synthetic voice? It gets it backwards: it's synthetic voices that are often stilted. And then why note that it stumbled on "autonomous"? Is this supposed to be some gotcha that it's controlled by a bashful human after all? But it just told you that a human is controlling it... some trashy journalism imho