3 ms·

Yes, that is exactly Tesla's line, and it is entirely beside the point. The point is the EXPECTATION set by decades of basically flat-out lying about the capab

by toss1 1y ago

Yes, that is exactly Tesla's line, and it is entirely beside the point. The point is the EXPECTATION set by decades of basically flat-out lying about the capabilities of "Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving". Hell, just the names alone entirely point to no-limitations full self driving. Plus selling $10k upgrades to use your car as a driverless taxi with the next software upgrade, which years later, has never happened. The fine print is BS; the message screams nothing but capable driving. Add to that the instant data collection and real-time deleting it at the scene, and Tesla is 100% wrong. (and I used to admire Tesla and aspire to own one) And this is 100% Tesla's own fault. They did NOT have to market it that way. Had they marketed it as "Advanced Driving Assistant" or "Super Lane-Keeping", or something, and left the data available to the driver, they likely could have won this case easily. "The guy wasn't even looking, we never even implied it could take over all driving, what the hell was he thinking?".

peterfirefly 1y ago
decades?
- toss1 1y ago
  Musk joined Tesla with the Series B round in 2005. Doesn't seem that way, but it's been 20 years. He first started talking publicly about "Autopilot" or "Full Self Driving" in 2013, so 1.2 would be referred to as plural decades. (I didn't have the exact number on hand, but knew it was 1+, and used the proper form; you prompted me to lookup the proper number)
cnst 1y ago
First of all, I don't condone the unlinking of snapshot_collision_airbag-deployment.tar after the upload, but, OTOH, I can also understand why something like that would be done, too. (If you were an owner of the car, would you want a subsequent owner to have the records of your crash? This is why I hate all these privacy advocates, because they ruin it for everyone.) If you've ever worked at any company where security and privacy are taken seriously, you'd be fully aware that things like logging incorrect password attempts is a straight up CVE waiting to happen, even though it's something that a legitimate user might as well want to be happening to find out who's trying to break into their system. Thank the privacy advocates. But I fail to see who exactly is misled by the marketing, ESPECIALLY given the non-stop negative media attention Tesla has always had. I mean, it's literally already called FSD Supervised, and previously it's been FSD Beta. How exactly is that not self-explanatory? But if you already a conclusion, the name is irrelevant. I mean, did you ever look at the Autopilot article in Wikipedia? It's about the aircraft system. Why do not we not FAA complaining to Boeing and Airbus that their airplanes have this super-misleading "autopilot", even though the pilots must still be supervising the tech?
- toss1 1y ago
  Yikes You entirely miss the distinction between trained professional and ignorant consumer, "industrial use only" equipment and materials vs everyday consumer goods, things that require technical training and even certification to use properly, vs goods sellable to any consumer, prescription drugs vs otc. The technical goods carry a much higher risk and must be used with specific training and context. Using them outside those contexts is likely to harm or kill people, and creates legal liability. In contrast, consumer goods must be engineered to be safe in ORDINARY circumstances with UNTRAINED people using them. Tesla is trying to paper over those differences and use technical terms in a common environment and unleash tools requiring skilled supervision to prevent death into a consumer environment, for profit. You are either failing to make the distinction or consciously going along with it.
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
Actual "autopilot" such as the kind actual pilots use does not give the pilot the ability to disregard the operation of their airplane. How does calling a feature "autopilot" then give consumers the impression that they can completely hand over operation of the car. Driving a car is a serious task and this driver was extremely negligent in executing that task.
- toss1 1y ago
  The "Autopilot" on planes is a lovely technical distinction. Hardly any non-aviator knows the details, and the common idea is that the plane pilots itself in most phases of non-emergency flight. And indeed, some autopilot functions can even auto-land according to the flight plan. But there is a bit of wiggle-room there to say people should expect to pay attention. Tesla's "Full Self Driving" leaves no such room. The only exception would be to consider Tesla to be lying. "Full", adjective Containing all that is normal or possible. "a full pail." Complete in every particular. "a full account." That's just the first DDG search. Go to ANY other dictionary and show me where "Full" in ordinary American English usage means anything other than complete, no exceptions, etc. "Full Self Driving" literally means "It FULLY drives itself". It does NOT mean "You and the automobile co-drive the car", or "Mostly self-driving", or "Sometimes self-driving", or "Self driving until it can't figure it out or fcks up", the latter of which seems the most accurate. If Tesla had called it ANY of those other things, they would be fine. And would be honest. But instead, Musk and Tesla decided to lie in plain language. And for that, they lost the case, and will likely lose many others. For some people, honesty matters. And honesty is not splitting hairs over differences between detailed technical meaning vs colloquial understanding ("autopilot"), or using the end-goal a decade+ away as the official name and description of the feature set ("Full Self Driving"). That is dishonest.
  - cnst 1y ago
    But Tesla doesn't have "Full Self Driving" period, they only have "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)" (and, prior to that, it's been FSD Beta). You can't just keep ignoring the "Supervised" bit as if it's not there. Just because you think it's a stupid name, doesn't make it a lie. Have you even tried it yourself? I've tried v12, and it's amazing. It does fully self-drive. Why would they call it "mostly" if the idea has always been that it'd be "full" when it's done and out of beta? And as robotaxi shows, it's literally almost there. I've just tried searching "FSD site:tesla.com" in Google Search, and basically every single result is "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)", with very few exceptions.
FeloniousHam 1y ago
No one, and I mean NO ONE who has driven 2 days with FSD has the misconception that a Tesla will drive itself under all conditions, 100% of the time. It _is_ "full self driving" in the sense that it fully, by itself, drives me to and from work everyday, to my child's school, to various events around town, _with minimal interventions_. This is partly because a large portion of the Tesla buyers were more intentional in their purchase (doubly so if they bought FSD). Accidents happen, and FSD surely reduces the frequency, but a change in the marketing (or the NAME lol, the pearl clutching) would not make a gram of difference.

by toss1 1y ago

peterfirefly 1y ago

decades?

toss1 1y ago
Musk joined Tesla with the Series B round in 2005. Doesn't seem that way, but it's been 20 years. He first started talking publicly about "Autopilot" or "Full Self Driving" in 2013, so 1.2 would be referred to as plural decades. (I didn't have the exact number on hand, but knew it was 1+, and used the proper form; you prompted me to lookup the proper number)

cnst 1y ago

First of all, I don't condone the unlinking of snapshot_collision_airbag-deployment.tar after the upload, but, OTOH, I can also understand why something like that would be done, too. (If you were an owner of the car, would you want a subsequent owner to have the records of your crash? This is why I hate all these privacy advocates, because they ruin it for everyone.) If you've ever worked at any company where security and privacy are taken seriously, you'd be fully aware that things like logging incorrect password attempts is a straight up CVE waiting to happen, even though it's something that a legitimate user might as well want to be happening to find out who's trying to break into their system. Thank the privacy advocates. But I fail to see who exactly is misled by the marketing, ESPECIALLY given the non-stop negative media attention Tesla has always had. I mean, it's literally already called FSD Supervised, and previously it's been FSD Beta. How exactly is that not self-explanatory? But if you already a conclusion, the name is irrelevant. I mean, did you ever look at the Autopilot article in Wikipedia? It's about the aircraft system. Why do not we not FAA complaining to Boeing and Airbus that their airplanes have this super-misleading "autopilot", even though the pilots must still be supervising the tech?

toss1 1y ago
Yikes You entirely miss the distinction between trained professional and ignorant consumer, "industrial use only" equipment and materials vs everyday consumer goods, things that require technical training and even certification to use properly, vs goods sellable to any consumer, prescription drugs vs otc. The technical goods carry a much higher risk and must be used with specific training and context. Using them outside those contexts is likely to harm or kill people, and creates legal liability. In contrast, consumer goods must be engineered to be safe in ORDINARY circumstances with UNTRAINED people using them. Tesla is trying to paper over those differences and use technical terms in a common environment and unleash tools requiring skilled supervision to prevent death into a consumer environment, for profit. You are either failing to make the distinction or consciously going along with it.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

Actual "autopilot" such as the kind actual pilots use does not give the pilot the ability to disregard the operation of their airplane. How does calling a feature "autopilot" then give consumers the impression that they can completely hand over operation of the car. Driving a car is a serious task and this driver was extremely negligent in executing that task.

toss1 1y ago
The "Autopilot" on planes is a lovely technical distinction. Hardly any non-aviator knows the details, and the common idea is that the plane pilots itself in most phases of non-emergency flight. And indeed, some autopilot functions can even auto-land according to the flight plan. But there is a bit of wiggle-room there to say people should expect to pay attention. Tesla's "Full Self Driving" leaves no such room. The only exception would be to consider Tesla to be lying. "Full", adjective Containing all that is normal or possible. "a full pail." Complete in every particular. "a full account." That's just the first DDG search. Go to ANY other dictionary and show me where "Full" in ordinary American English usage means anything other than complete, no exceptions, etc. "Full Self Driving" literally means "It FULLY drives itself". It does NOT mean "You and the automobile co-drive the car", or "Mostly self-driving", or "Sometimes self-driving", or "Self driving until it can't figure it out or fcks up", the latter of which seems the most accurate. If Tesla had called it ANY of those other things, they would be fine. And would be honest. But instead, Musk and Tesla decided to lie in plain language. And for that, they lost the case, and will likely lose many others. For some people, honesty matters. And honesty is not splitting hairs over differences between detailed technical meaning vs colloquial understanding ("autopilot"), or using the end-goal a decade+ away as the official name and description of the feature set ("Full Self Driving"). That is dishonest.
- cnst 1y ago
  But Tesla doesn't have "Full Self Driving" period, they only have "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)" (and, prior to that, it's been FSD Beta). You can't just keep ignoring the "Supervised" bit as if it's not there. Just because you think it's a stupid name, doesn't make it a lie. Have you even tried it yourself? I've tried v12, and it's amazing. It does fully self-drive. Why would they call it "mostly" if the idea has always been that it'd be "full" when it's done and out of beta? And as robotaxi shows, it's literally almost there. I've just tried searching "FSD site:tesla.com" in Google Search, and basically every single result is "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)", with very few exceptions.

FeloniousHam 1y ago

No one, and I mean NO ONE who has driven 2 days with FSD has the misconception that a Tesla will drive itself under all conditions, 100% of the time. It _is_ "full self driving" in the sense that it fully, by itself, drives me to and from work everyday, to my child's school, to various events around town, _with minimal interventions_. This is partly because a large portion of the Tesla buyers were more intentional in their purchase (doubly so if they bought FSD). Accidents happen, and FSD surely reduces the frequency, but a change in the marketing (or the NAME lol, the pearl clutching) would not make a gram of difference.