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

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

#561

Post by valine » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 2:20 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #497

valine wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason many people buy the full self driving package is so they can experience the latest state of the art autonomous driving software as Tesla develops it, and Tesla continues to deliver on that promise. Smart summon and stopping for traffic control were both added recently as software updates. Even more recently they’ve improved the lane keeping performance on curvy roads, which is something nobody really menti…

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/866482406160609280 >>> (Question from Twitter): Update on the coast to coast autopilot demo? >> Elon: Still on for end of year. Just software limited. Any Tesla car with HW2 (all cars built since Oct last year) will be able to do this. May, 2017. Elon bragging that "coast-to-coast" autonomous driving will be available by end of 2017. Straight up vaporware, a lie, no where close to…

It’s obviously behind schedule, but that doesn’t make it vaporware. Tesla is still actively developing fsd and continues to release useful features.

Would you rather they stopped hyping the feature altogether? The income from selling fsd helps fund development.

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

#562

Post by richardwhiuk » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 2:23 PM UTC

buran77 wrote: post #554

emn13 wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the parent poster is trying to make the point that it's unreasonable to ask people to pay attention. In any case the fault is most certainly not merely marketing, it's a fundamental design flaw. You cannot expect people to maintain constant attention when that attention almost never leads to anything; people simply aren't capable of that. That's also why similarly "boring" tasks are so failure prone (e.g. htt…

> In any case the fault is most certainly not merely marketing, it's a fundamental design flaw. I was actually referring to the ruling. The court did not take issue with the autopilot system, just with the way it's marketed. For the rest of your comment I agree and I implied something along the same lines. Tesla should have built a system that works to compensate for human failings, not take advantage of them to sell…

> public transport vehicles where lights sync to the vehicle

This is a common rumour, but is there anywhere which actually implements this?

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

#563

Post by stetrain » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 2:27 PM 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.”

My point was about the video itself, which features prominently on the page.

Yes, there are disclaimers on that page. I just think that being up-front with the current state of the system (driver assistance) would be clearer than starting with autonomous driving and then adding a bunch of qualifiers to it. And it seems the German court agrees.

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

#564

Post by saalweachter » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 2:41 PM UTC

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #499

saddlerustle wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

technically , but only a handful (<5) of vehicles are run without a safety driver, each has a dedicated remote operator and a follower vehicle, and the area covered is much smaller than their regular operation (a small area in the suburbs).

Is there any way to find out how much the remote operator is actively involved in the driving? Like for example how often do they generally intervene?

I would really hope the remote operator is just there to punch a kill switch and force the vehicle to stop.

No idea if that's the case, remote-piloted drone cars just seem like a bad idea -- lag, loss of signal, hijacking, etc.

(Although if it is technologically feasible and we're willing to go that route, it seems like you could make eg long distance truck driving safer that way -- if you have truck pilots working from an office complex in suburbia, you could change drivers without stopping the vehicle, allowing drivers to take frequent breaks and work ~8 hour shifts before going home to sleep in their own beds, while the trucks drive non-stop. If most big-rig accidents are caused by drivers driving too long without enough sleep and rest, you should be able to get substantial decreases without the overhead of sending multiple drivers with each truck.)

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

#565

Post by runeks » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 2:53 PM UTC

> 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.

I suspect we will remain “close to” autonomous cars for several decades.

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

#566

Post by ashtonkem » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 2:58 PM UTC

kec wrote: post #449

ashtonkem wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m genuinely surprised there hasn’t been a class action lawsuit over selling “full self driving” on Tesla vehicles. That’s been going on long enough to tip over from “over-optimistic” to “straight forward fraud”.

Tesla has only been promising "FSD" on cars sold after 2016. The service life for most vehicles is on the order of about 10 years or so, meaning I don't think you'll see serious pressure for a class action until the mid 2020's (but I do think it's coming).

About 50% of luxury car owners lease their cars, and 80% of non-Tesla EVs, compared to country wide averages in the 25-30% range. So while most of the Tesla’s sold with FSD are still on the road, a fairly sizable chunk of the 2016 vehicles may already be on their second owner, with the first owner paying for FSD they never got.

Now what’s less clear is how many Tesla owners have re-upped their lease, and how many bought the car they leased. Typically luxury owners lease their cars so they can get the latest features in 3 years, but Tesla hasn’t offered many physical changes to the 3 since it was introduced, with a lot of the changes being done in software.

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

#567

Post by dragontamer » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

valine wrote: post #561

dragontamer wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/866482406160609280 >>> (Question from Twitter): Update on the coast to coast autopilot demo? >> Elon: Still on for end of year. Just software limited. Any Tesla car with HW2 (all cars built since Oct last year) will be able to do this. May, 2017. Elon bragging that "coast-to-coast" autonomous driving will be available by end of 2017. Straight up vaporware, a lie, no where close to…

It’s obviously behind schedule, but that doesn’t make it vaporware. Tesla is still actively developing fsd and continues to release useful features. Would you rather they stopped hyping the feature altogether? The income from selling fsd helps fund development.

> Would you rather they stopped hyping the feature altogether? The income from selling fsd helps fund development.

Selling stocks funds development. Raising bonds funds development.

Selling $5000 features to paying customers that don't work is immoral, and the very definition of vaporware. Its blatant false advertisement.

When a customer crashes into a police car and dies, due to misunderstanding what "full-self driving" means, the blood is on Telsa's hands. When a customer is beheaded by a stationary truck in the middle of the road, because the "Full Self Driving" Tesla cannot see stopped vehicles, it is blood on the hands of Tesla.

-----------

Leave the speculation to stockholders and bondholders. They're rewarded with speculation. Customers literally die if they use these features wrong, and have already died over this issue.

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

#568

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 3:14 PM UTC

dmoy wrote: post #213

Dylan16807 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the autopilot on airplanes lie? If you said "misdirection" or something, I would fully understand. But what's untrue about saying that plane autopilot is pretty limited?

It's not telling the whole truth, because the average person doesn't fly planes and has no firm grasp on how extensive a plane's autopilot is, or what the difference in situations is. What they do see is the Tesla marketing videos that hype it up to be better than it actually is. It's lying by omission.

[deleted]

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

#569

Post by iggldiggl » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 3:39 PM UTC

richardwhiuk wrote: post #562

buran77 wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In any case the fault is most certainly not merely marketing, it's a fundamental design flaw. I was actually referring to the ruling. The court did not take issue with the autopilot system, just with the way it's marketed. For the rest of your comment I agree and I implied something along the same lines. Tesla should have built a system that works to compensate for human failings, not take advantage of them to sell…

> public transport vehicles where lights sync to the vehicle This is a common rumour, but is there anywhere which actually implements this?

Yes.

(And I can also confirm the effect that at intersections where full public transport priority usually guarantees a green some drivers do react a bit... surprised on the rare occasion when it doesn't work for whatever reasons)

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

#570

Post by buran77 » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

richardwhiuk wrote: post #562

buran77 wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In any case the fault is most certainly not merely marketing, it's a fundamental design flaw. I was actually referring to the ruling. The court did not take issue with the autopilot system, just with the way it's marketed. For the rest of your comment I agree and I implied something along the same lines. Tesla should have built a system that works to compensate for human failings, not take advantage of them to sell…

> public transport vehicles where lights sync to the vehicle This is a common rumour, but is there anywhere which actually implements this?

Where I live yes. On some lines especially in the city center and more crowded intersections public transport gets priority. When they have stops before an intersection no matter how long they have to wait there for passengers to get on or off, the moment they are ready to move the light turns red for everyone else. There are also places where a special light turns red (there's no green) when they pass in order to guarantee the priority while the rest of the time traffic uses the right of way for example.

This makes sense, the light sync system is already in place and they carry dozens or more passengers at once. This kind of advantage over a car carrying one person gives people more incentive to use public transport.