4 ms·

Nope. That was a smear campaign. The "reporter" did not even watch the linked raw footage which shows that FSD was, in fact, engaged and that "reporter" was a T

by Veserv 1y ago

Nope. That was a smear campaign. The "reporter" did not even watch the linked raw footage which shows that FSD was, in fact, engaged and that "reporter" was a Tesla promoter who referred $15,000,000 in sales and earned $500,000 from the Tesla referral program [1]. But, hey, it worked. Here you are repeating the smear. Oh, and by the way, Tesla did not pay out and he has now soured on them and now routinely uses a Dawn Project image demonstrating FSD running down a child in a school crosswalk [2] to headline their stories. I would assume he would not use that image if he thought the Dawn Project was still lying about the whole thing. And frankly the logic does not even make any sense. The only way claiming that they faked it by not even enabling it, pressing the accelerator pedal, or whatever lie the avowed Tesla promoters like spewing, exonerates Tesla is if you are claiming that it only consistently runs down children when they do that. A video demonstrating that the precondition does not need to be true demonstrates the shrill cries of faking it to be irrelevant. And the baseless claims that it it must have been faked because it would only do that when manipulated to be "assuming the desired answer and working backwards" that it always was. The fact that the Tesla promoters need to keep making up false claims since they kept getting demolished and now have to resort to pointing at earlier videos before there were enough camera angles to immediately disprove their imagined manipulations is a testament to how intellectually bankrupt their position is. This video is just one in a long line of demonstrations that the Tesla promoters are running a clear smear campaign. None of their imagined manipulations have been true. The claims that is must have been faked since that is the only way it would consistently run down a child were false, a logical fallacy, and a intentional smear campaign by avowed Tesla promoters. Neat. [1] https://electrek.co/2019/01/17/tesla-roadster-free-killed-referral-program/ https://electrek.co/2019/01/17/tesla-roadster-free-killed-re... [2] https://electrek.co/2025/05/21/tesla-head-self-driving-admits-lagging-a-couple-years-behind-waymo/ https://electrek.co/2025/05/21/tesla-head-self-driving-admit...

josephcsible 1y ago
> The "reporter" did not even watch the linked raw footage which shows that FSD was, in fact, engaged It was not engaged. Note this part of the article and the immediately following image: > Sure enough, The Dawn Project’s own video of the test shows the driver “activating” FSD Beta by pressing on the Autopilot stalk, but we can clearly see that it didn’t activate because the course prediction line stays grey and the Autopilot wheel doesn’t appear on the top left: And if these problems were real, people other than O'Dowd would be able to replicate them. But in other people's tests, they don't happen. > if you are claiming that it only consistently runs down children when they do that Yes, I am claiming that. The only way Teslas consistently run down children is when their built-in assistive and safety systems are shut off, and a human drives fully manually into them.
- Veserv 1y ago
  Can you at least read to the end of the article you post as evidence before making demonstrably false claims? "Update: The Dawn Project has since released additional footage that doesn’t appear in its ad where we can see that they were able to activate FSD, however, the footage is inconsistent with the results published about the test and in the ad." (Note: The claim that the written results had errors at the time was true. The errors were fixed in a subsequent revision.) https://x.com/twn675/status/1557415939569639424 https://x.com/twn675/status/1557415939569639424 In fact, here is the actual released report: https://dawnproject.com/the-dawn-projects-new-advertising-campaign-highlighting-the-dangers-of-teslas-full-self-driving/ https://dawnproject.com/the-dawn-projects-new-advertising-ca... With the contemporaneous raw footage here: https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/raw-footage.mp4 https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/raw-foota... Amazing, the claim that it was not engaged is straight up false with clear video evidence that it is false and the Tesla promoter who pretends to be a "reporter" did not feel like investigating the source before making false claims accusing others of making false claims. That should really make you rethink which side is more credible. Hint, it is not the side that does not bother to watch raw footage because they already made up their mind that the company who pays them is right. Care to retract your false statement now that there is clear video evidence that your statement is false? Or are you going to argue that at 0:40 FSD disengaged two seconds before impact, but with enough remaining velocity to collide if no corrective human action is provided, therefore FSD is not responsible?
  - josephcsible 1y ago
    > however, the footage is inconsistent with the results published about the test and in the ad. That part seems to be a big deal that you're totally glossing over. And again, if these are real problems, why have so many other people tried and failed to reproduce them?
    - Veserv 1y ago
      So your argument was: > It was not engaged. But since that is now clearly false using the evidence you yourself presented you have transitioned to: "The raw video footage clearly demonstrates the claim of FSD colliding with the child under the stated conditions, but the written report had incorrectly documented what occurred in the video footage, but which has since been corrected. That disproves the raw video footage of the claim." Talk about moving the goalposts. Care to retract your false statement that it was not engaged?

by Veserv 1y ago

josephcsible 1y ago

> The "reporter" did not even watch the linked raw footage which shows that FSD was, in fact, engaged It was not engaged. Note this part of the article and the immediately following image: > Sure enough, The Dawn Project’s own video of the test shows the driver “activating” FSD Beta by pressing on the Autopilot stalk, but we can clearly see that it didn’t activate because the course prediction line stays grey and the Autopilot wheel doesn’t appear on the top left: And if these problems were real, people other than O'Dowd would be able to replicate them. But in other people's tests, they don't happen. > if you are claiming that it only consistently runs down children when they do that Yes, I am claiming that. The only way Teslas consistently run down children is when their built-in assistive and safety systems are shut off, and a human drives fully manually into them.

Veserv 1y ago
Can you at least read to the end of the article you post as evidence before making demonstrably false claims? "Update: The Dawn Project has since released additional footage that doesn’t appear in its ad where we can see that they were able to activate FSD, however, the footage is inconsistent with the results published about the test and in the ad." (Note: The claim that the written results had errors at the time was true. The errors were fixed in a subsequent revision.) https://x.com/twn675/status/1557415939569639424 https://x.com/twn675/status/1557415939569639424 In fact, here is the actual released report: https://dawnproject.com/the-dawn-projects-new-advertising-campaign-highlighting-the-dangers-of-teslas-full-self-driving/ https://dawnproject.com/the-dawn-projects-new-advertising-ca... With the contemporaneous raw footage here: https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/raw-footage.mp4 https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/raw-foota... Amazing, the claim that it was not engaged is straight up false with clear video evidence that it is false and the Tesla promoter who pretends to be a "reporter" did not feel like investigating the source before making false claims accusing others of making false claims. That should really make you rethink which side is more credible. Hint, it is not the side that does not bother to watch raw footage because they already made up their mind that the company who pays them is right. Care to retract your false statement now that there is clear video evidence that your statement is false? Or are you going to argue that at 0:40 FSD disengaged two seconds before impact, but with enough remaining velocity to collide if no corrective human action is provided, therefore FSD is not responsible?
- josephcsible 1y ago
  > however, the footage is inconsistent with the results published about the test and in the ad. That part seems to be a big deal that you're totally glossing over. And again, if these are real problems, why have so many other people tried and failed to reproduce them?
  - Veserv 1y ago
    So your argument was: > It was not engaged. But since that is now clearly false using the evidence you yourself presented you have transitioned to: "The raw video footage clearly demonstrates the claim of FSD colliding with the child under the stated conditions, but the written report had incorrectly documented what occurred in the video footage, but which has since been corrected. That disproves the raw video footage of the claim." Talk about moving the goalposts. Care to retract your false statement that it was not engaged?