German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving • Hacker News Board

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#501

Post by Erlich_Bachman » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:38 AM UTC

natch wrote: post #452

stetrain wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I think the name "Autopilot" is the least troublesome part of the marketing. Other car makers call their systems CoPilot, ProPilot, SuperCruise, whatever and I think the name matters less than the communication and details of using the system. The main Autopilot marketing page shows a video of a Tesla driving itself, says the Driver is there for legal purposes only, and provides no other disclaimers about th…

>no other disclaimers about the limitations No other disclaimers? Are we reading the same page you linked? The title of the page clearly says “Future of Driving” “Autopilot today and full self-driving capabilities in the future...“ The page then goes on to define what Autopilot is and concludes with this: “Current Autopilot features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous.”

Why is that so difficult for people on HN to find? I have read that page once, built an understanding based on that - and then watched youtube videos with the exact operation of the Autopilot, and talked to owners of it - and my understanding did not change, it was exactly the same as the one I received on the Tesla's own page... Am I speaking better English than these people or what? Why can't they just read the website fully? Why are so many people on HN say that Tesla is trying to fool someone?

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#502

Post by Erlich_Bachman » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:40 AM UTC

lsh123 wrote: post #458

stetrain wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I think the name "Autopilot" is the least troublesome part of the marketing. Other car makers call their systems CoPilot, ProPilot, SuperCruise, whatever and I think the name matters less than the communication and details of using the system. The main Autopilot marketing page shows a video of a Tesla driving itself, says the Driver is there for legal purposes only, and provides no other disclaimers about th…

Audi calls it adaptive cruise control which I find correctly describes what it does.

"Adaptive cruise control" sounds like the vechicle is just controlling speed based on the car in front. It does not sound like it implies any type of auto-steering.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#503

Post by alasdair_ » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:40 AM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #431

awad wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a comment on the advertising but I am struck by how Tesla and Elon Musk remind me of Apple and Steve Jobs. Both very divisive companies and leaders prone to downright emotional attacks from one side and staunch defense by the other. While has been quite a bit of hyperbole, overselling, and straight up failure to deliver, you can't dispute that both pushed their respective industries forward almost singleha…

Tales of both men’s greatness diminish rapidly the closer one got to them too.

The same is true for every great figure I can think of, from Gandhi to Einstein, except perhaps Mr Rogers.

I’m still glad these people exist.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#504

Post by OnlyForF1 » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:41 AM UTC

random314 wrote: post #177

outworlder wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But autopilot in a plane doesn't require the pilot to take over in a split second. That's a very broad statement. Autopilots can disengage at any time and you are supposed to take control pretty much immediately.

Like the op said, split second takeover is not required in a flight autopilot

Yes it is... Especially when the autopilot causes the aircraft to enter a dangerous configuration.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#505

Post by Erlich_Bachman » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:42 AM UTC

amznthrwaway wrote: post #348

PCChris wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do say on the same page you linked that "Current Autopilot features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous."

They've also been promising full autonomy for five years straight. The wording of "Current autopilot features" is intended to help deceive the public into thinking that full autonomy is coming next year.

"Current" means the features that exist right now. This is a correct English description of how it works. In what possible way is it deceiving? How would you even phrase it differently in a short sentence?

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#506

Post by OnlyForF1 » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:44 AM UTC

arrosenberg wrote: post #492

chrisseaton wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plenty of people refer to their front seat passenger as a co-pilot or navigator Can you use that in a sentence? Like 'will you be my co-pilot while I drive to the store?' I don't see it to be honest.

"I don't know exactly where the turn is, I need you to co-pilot."

The word literally everyone uses in that scenario is "navigate". Aside from rally drivers, nobody in the history of ever has used co-pilot in that scenario..

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#507

Post by alasdair_ » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:46 AM UTC

Smoosh wrote: post #457

foobarian wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your comment on competitive advantage. What would it be in Tesla's case? It's not really the car design or assembly. I know they tried to play "disrupt" games with throwing software at the production line but I understand it didn't go well. Couple things that come to mind: 1) SV software culture, kinda coming from Musk. This helps with battery pack management (important), electric motor control (importan…

> It's not really the car design I think it partly is the car design. They were the first manufacturer trying to make a mainstream car which was designed from the ground up to take advantage of being a BEV (for example with batteries flat under the floor). Others always based their electric car upon an existing ICE design despite the ensuing compromises.

This is super important. Most ICE vendors tried to take an existing vehicle, remove the ICE components and shoehorn in an electric motor. Tesla really nailed the “ground up” design (a drag coefficient of 0.24 was almost unbelievable when the model S debuted) and even now the other makers haven’t really caught up.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#508

Post by sjwright » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:47 AM UTC

bdcravens wrote: post #174

gardaani wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only five days ago Elon Musk claimed that "we will have the basic functionality for level five autonomy complete this year." (yeah..!) https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53349313

Even at level 5 (full autonomy with no input needed), when it fails, they'll still blame the driver.

At L5 you can't "blame the driver" because there is no driver.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#509

Post by OnlyForF1 » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:48 AM UTC

OliverJones wrote: post #307

dkonofalski wrote: post #3

I agree with this wholeheartedly, even as a Tesla owner. Tesla goofed from the beginning by calling tech like "Autosteer" and "Traffic Assisted Cruise Control" under the moniker "Autopilot" while shifting everything above that to "Full Self-Driving". They should have called it "CoPilot" since that infers that you're still the driver in charge of controlling the vehicle and it would have had exactly the same reception…

I too have a Tesla vehicle, and I too agree with this German regulator's decision. You CAN'T climb from the driver's seat to the back seat and take a nap while the car is running. And that's because lane holding and adaptive cruise control are not reliable enough. "Autopilot" is deceptive. In aviation, it's hard to engage an autopilot until you have a desired altitude, heading, and speed. And that's in the sky, far f…

>You CAN'T climb from the driver's seat to the back seat and take a nap

You can't do this with an aircraft autopilot either, there must always be a human pilot ready to take over at a moment's notice.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#510

Post by kerkeslager » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:48 AM UTC

mtgp1000 wrote: post #379

u10 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Betting against Elon is a fools errand not because he's right, but because he's built a personality cult around himself.

Counterpoint: Elon Musk is the only (publicly visible) CEO who is seriously talking about going to Mars and direct interfacing between machines and humans and making tangible steps toward these futuristic goals. His rockets are [mostly] not exploding, his cars are selling to [mostly] good reviews, and neuralink seems to be doing something too. Perhaps his cult of personality is deserved because although he (along wit…

I don't think that anyone is arguing that Musk hasn't done big things. The problem is, he's about 50/50 on how often the big things he does are actually good. This is completely ignored by his fanboys, who ignore the bad, and laud the good to an extent that's entirely untethered from reality.

Take your post for example: You soften the word "lied" to "overpromised" and then slowly build to more and more absurd lavishing praise. "Practical vision" is a bit of a stretch, but "democratizing" is just not reality. And "if you're the type to find inspiration in great people"--just about everyone finds inspiration in great people, so that's not even saying anything, it's just trying to indirectly say Elon Musk is a great person.