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

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

#531

Post by altacc » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 8:28 AM UTC

outworlder wrote: post #106

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…

> Tesla goofed from the beginning by calling tech like "Autosteer" and "Traffic Assisted Cruise Control" under the moniker "Autopilot" Aviation autopilots can do even less than that and yet they are still called "autopilot". Altitude hold? That's autopilot. Also, "copilots" are generally fully capable of flying the aircraft and have the exact same capabilities. If you are irked about the 'autopilot' moniker, then dit…

Putting aside that modern plane autopilots can also navigate and land planes, the common definition of words is often more important than the technical definition. Especially when it comes to marketing to the general public. Terminology gets reused because it has a common usage and somebody wants to use that to frame their new & shiny product.

Ask a normal person what they think autopilot does and they'll say "the plane flys by itself". Using that for cars becomes "the car drives itself". Same for copilot, most people probably think they're there to help the pilot.

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

#532

Post by elisharobinson » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 8:35 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #238

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main Autopilot marketing page shows a video of a Tesla driving itself, says the Driver is there for legal purposes only This alone feels like lawsuit-bait. I'm surprised it took this long for the courts to get involved.

Tesla’s Chief Executive Elon Musk said this month the electric car manufacturer was close to making its cars capable of automated driving without any need for driver input, so-called Level 5 autonomy. Yeah, right. Tesla has only Level 2 self-driving. They've never demonstrated Level 3 outside a video of a demo in Palo Alto. They wouldn't even let the press take a ride. Google/Waymo has hundreds of self-driving vehicl…

Dude you are ignoring a whole host of other factors here . Since you ignored them let me clarify . Waymo does not do freeways . It uses HD maps , bulky lidar systems which have many moving parts , speed limits, etc . Waymo will never be a real thing solely based on the fact of power draw for all those electronics . If that system is mounted on a EV it will drain batteries quickly and add weight if it's added on ICE car it will suck the range, same is true for all other car manufacturers attempting full autonomy. Tesla is the only company who even has a remote possibility of getting the feature on the road if they market that realty , as something of a pre-order kind of thing I'm not sure I have a problem with that. Personally I feel they would have to have a another revision of Thier FSD chip and refresh Thier current ML model to realize it .

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

#533

Post by bkor » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 9:02 AM UTC

foepys wrote: post #298

lazyjones wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Besides the Model 3's crazy acceleration, and automatic lane changing, I think the Accord matches or exceeds a Model 3 in every single way Except noise, pollution, complexity/maintenance cost, OTA updates, large touchscreen navigation that gets updated continuously, having to visit gas stations etc. etc. ICE is just obsolete technology. Half the performance at 10 times the noise and infinitely more pollution.

Noise actually isn't a factor. After about 20mph tire noise drowns out engine noise. Excluding cars that are purposely build/modified to be annoyingly loud.

> Noise actually isn't a factor. After about 20mph tire noise drowns out engine noise.

I drove (passenger) in a friends electric car once. That car is significantly more quiet than a lot of cars I've been in. Some other people mention that noise dampening takes care of the noise, but that just proves above: an (ICE) engine is very noisy!

It's also very apparent in some hiking trips: any ICE is terribly noisy. You can easily determine which cars are electric though. Everyone driving electric would hugely cut down on road noise. I cannot wait until everyone can afford and uses one.

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

#534

Post by buran77 » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 9:10 AM UTC

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #498

FireBeyond wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. He said this in 2014. 2016. 2018. Even at the end of 2019: > "You'll be able to FSD, coast to coast, by the end of this year". Meanwhile Teslas are still having a multitude of autopilot accidents that, had a human been paying attention (their fault, I understand), would not have happened - plowing at speed into fire engines with emergency lighting on, plowing into overturned semi trailers blocking multiple f…

"multitude", as in single-digit number of total accidents? Doesn't seem that high actually...

That's a bit cynical, "single-digit number" of people died simply because they believed the marketing. Ultimately it is their fault for taking the marketing over common sense and legal requirements but you can't handwave it away because "not enough people died". You can't blame a government for intervening to make sure more people don't fall for this kind of deceptive advertising tactics.

No car manufacturer today offers anything resembling true self driving. Not even close. But Tesla is the only manufacturer who insists they do and that any issues are of legal and regulatory nature. Wink wink nudge nudge. That is simply not true and if it weren't for drivers repeatedly intervening the AP would cause far more than single-digit number of accidents or deaths.

And this is not an effort against Tesla, it's an effort for consumers and safety. And the right to be informed about what you;re actually buying.

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

#535

Post by bkor » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 9:13 AM UTC

w0utert wrote: post #301

lazyjones wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Besides the Model 3's crazy acceleration, and automatic lane changing, I think the Accord matches or exceeds a Model 3 in every single way Except noise, pollution, complexity/maintenance cost, OTA updates, large touchscreen navigation that gets updated continuously, having to visit gas stations etc. etc. ICE is just obsolete technology. Half the performance at 10 times the noise and infinitely more pollution.

Not saying that Tesla makes bad cars or that electric vehicles are not the future, but you have to realise that the things you mention are not necessarily things everyone cares about or even appreciates. For many people all Tesla cars are way out of their budget for example, or not big enough, or they don't like the interior finish, or they actually enjoy the sound of a powerful ICE, or they don't like longer chargin…

> Not saying that Tesla makes bad cars

The quality control within Tesla is quite poor though, especially considering the price of such cars. I've watched various Tesla videos after seeing some "tear down" videos of a Tesla Y. After that I regularly get various electric car video suggestions. There's a lot of channels/people covering and liking Tesla, while saying things like "ah yeah, they just restarted production so obviously quality is bad and you should not have ordered a car at that time". Then another person talks about the crazy amount of times he had to bring back his car because of issues that it had from once he got it. But instead of being angry, he's happy it's a "free fix", completely forgetting how much he paid for something which apparently wasn't checked that much. Also noticed loads of people mentioning that the Tesla paint department is known to be quite poor. That goes back many years.

I'm very happy people are buying electric cars. For Tesla the increase in experience and expanded production should bring down costs (learned this from an article about solar power costs; costs doesn't just go down because you build bigger, it's mostly the increased experience which brings down costs). I like that people more drive electric. Tesla is building a factory in Germany, hopefully a with a better paint department. Various EU countries are pushing for more electric, so really hope the price goes down and the quality goes way up. Meanwhile, I'm happy with my bicycle.

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

#536

Post by bkor » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 9:24 AM UTC

OnlyForF1 wrote: post #512

FabHK wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. And during those hours of straight and level flight you can read a book or talk to the cabin crew or have a meal. Shouldn't do that in the car (yet).

That violates the sterile cockpit rule and is a HUGE no no. Pilots can only read a book or talk to cabin crew if the control of the aircraft is with the other human pilot in the cockpit. Someone has to be ready to take control of the aircraft at a moment's notice in the case of a sensor, software, or mechanical failure.

> That violates the sterile cockpit rule and is a HUGE no no. Pilots can only read a book or talk to cabin crew if the control of the aircraft is with the other human pilot in the cockpit.

Sterile cockpit does not seem to apply at cruising altitude though, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_Cockpit_Rule: "The Sterile Cockpit Rule is a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulation stating that during critical phases of flight (normally below 10,000 feet (3,050 m)), only activities required for the safe operation of the aircraft may be carried out, and all non-essential activities in the cockpit are forbidden."

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

#537

Post by bkor » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 9:27 AM UTC

catalogia wrote: post #47

chrisseaton wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some can land in some conditions. So... a bit like a Tesla parking itself in some conditions?

Perhaps, but I've already responded to you addressing this, in this thread. The public's ignorance must be considered; being "technically correct" isn't good enough if the "technically correct" statement is being made by somebody who has every reason to believe it will be misunderstood.

To add: saying that your marketing is "technically correct" while focussing on the general audience is quite convenient (deceptive).

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

#538

Post by buran77 » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 9:36 AM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #489

FireBeyond wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. He said this in 2014. 2016. 2018. Even at the end of 2019: > "You'll be able to FSD, coast to coast, by the end of this year". Meanwhile Teslas are still having a multitude of autopilot accidents that, had a human been paying attention (their fault, I understand), would not have happened - plowing at speed into fire engines with emergency lighting on, plowing into overturned semi trailers blocking multiple f…

> (their fault, I understand) Humans are horrendous at maintaining constant attention to a task that only requires sporadic attention. If there is a human in the control loop, then it needs to take into account human limitations. Therefore, I'd be very hesitant to assign these as being the fault of the passenger who happens to be sitting in a driver seat.

I am honestly not sure how to interpret your comment but I'll try to respond. The fault is not with the AP. That's just a computer doing what it was programmed to do. It's with how the system is presented by the people selling it. The marketing is intentionally deceptive for profit and people died for believing it. And Germany didn't ban the system, they banned the deception.

If Wells Fargo or Comcast did the same pitchforks would be out. But Comcast can only hurt you, misusing AP can hurt others too. So having the government intervene is a matter of public safety and doing what a government should do: look out for people's interests, not the corporations'.

When you build a system you have to compensate for inherent weaknesses. Tesla does the opposite and exploits them for profit (as many other companies do) by capitalizing on these well known human weaknesses (lack of attention, gullibility especially with complex topics). They use easy to fool systems that assume drivers are always engaged because they allow the AP to disconnect less and look more capable. And they capitalize on the gullibility by branding the AP as something it's clearly not:

> full self-driving in almost all circumstances. The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat

> All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go.

> manage complex intersections with traffic lights, stop signs and roundabouts, and handle densely packed freeways with cars moving at high speed.

> use of these features without supervision is dependent [...] regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions.

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

#539

Post by kosievdmerwe » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 9:43 AM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #489

FireBeyond wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. He said this in 2014. 2016. 2018. Even at the end of 2019: > "You'll be able to FSD, coast to coast, by the end of this year". Meanwhile Teslas are still having a multitude of autopilot accidents that, had a human been paying attention (their fault, I understand), would not have happened - plowing at speed into fire engines with emergency lighting on, plowing into overturned semi trailers blocking multiple f…

> (their fault, I understand) Humans are horrendous at maintaining constant attention to a task that only requires sporadic attention. If there is a human in the control loop, then it needs to take into account human limitations. Therefore, I'd be very hesitant to assign these as being the fault of the passenger who happens to be sitting in a driver seat.

Yeah. A system that doesn't take into account human failings is a flawed system.

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

#540

Post by Erlich_Bachman » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 9:58 AM UTC

buran77 wrote: post #534

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"multitude", as in single-digit number of total accidents? Doesn't seem that high actually...

That's a bit cynical, "single-digit number" of people died simply because they believed the marketing. Ultimately it is their fault for taking the marketing over common sense and legal requirements but you can't handwave it away because "not enough people died". You can't blame a government for intervening to make sure more people don't fall for this kind of deceptive advertising tactics. No car manufacturer today of…

> died simply because they believed the marketing

That's really not true. Those are people who consciously chose to ignore numerous warnings presented, both in the marketing (where the exact phrase "requires conscious human attention" is used), and also the warnings of the car itself where it says all the time things like "keep the eyes on the road", "need to stay alert", warnings every 10 seconds, audio signals, turning off in case the car knows the human is non-attentive etc.

It is very unfortunate when people die, but you have to take into account how many people die in other cars in general. If we want to get 0 traffic deaths, we need to ban all cars, period. As a society, we do not want this.

> But Tesla is the only manufacturer who insists they do

This is just blatantly false. No they don't. Show me any marketing material where tesla claims to have operational Level 5 self-driving in currently available to consumers cars. Show me where it says that. Not some article in some mainstream media where a journalist tries to get attention, but in Tesla-distributed materials, marketing or otherwise, where they claim to have Level 5. Where is it? Why would you even make such a claim that is so easy to check...