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

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

#581

Post by kec » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:07 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #566

kec wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bou…

What I meant is Tesla has an easy out until the first cars they sold the FSD update reach the end of their service life. Shitty for the early adopters yes, but not definitively false advertising yet.

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

#582

Post by natch » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #430

LoSboccacc wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> next year this year https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/07/09/elon-mu...

If you buy Tesla or Musk’s promises on when FSD will arrive, then I have a bridge for sale. They’ve been promising that “soon” for a long time now.

This kind of claim — that they are making and breaking promises — is really flame bait. Every time I have asked for links to these promises, people have been unable to provide them.

Instead they provide links to articles where Elon said he "expects" or "thinks" or "predicts" (or, the most utterly damning case which I saw just once, "is certain") of something.

Where generally the something is either:

A) not even full self driving

B) or not on production cars, but only on prototype cars, and rightly so, because a regulatory approval will be needed.

I don't think these mythical "promises" really exist, except in the minds of people who have not understood what has been presented.

Of course you left yourself an out with the word "soon." OK, I think they can get away with saying that, but you have to be discerning as a reader and understand that the time scale is not going to be weeks or months.

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

#583

Post by dkonofalski » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

OnlyForF1 wrote: post #506

arrosenberg wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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..

C'mon... you know that's not true. Maybe it's a regional thing or a geographic thing but I've lived in multiple US cities on both coasts and in the north and south and have had people use the term on many occasions. I even had a friend when I was growing up whose parents designated the role of "co-pilot" to the eldest when they were old enough to sit in the front seat.

"I need you to be my co-pilot and watch out for cops."

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

#584

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #222

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same thing as putting "fat free" on the Twizzlers. It's technically true which means they can get away with it. Except that that probably kills more people than "autopilot" ever will.

It's not food companies' fault that the English word “fat” has multiple meanings and is the normal word for several of them.

You don't think they're intentionally using that word for precisely that reason?

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

#585

Post by Erlich_Bachman » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:22 PM UTC

tweetle_beetle wrote: post #544

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, tur…

If the messages delivered through marketing channels are different to the ones delivered with a physical product, then that is a problem. Visit https://www.tesla.com/autopilot and see for yourself how the message changes within a single page. Yes: "All new Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features today..." No: "...and full self-driving capabilities in the future—through…

> Yes: "All new Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features today..."

> No: "...and full self-driving capabilities in the future—through software updates designed to improve functionality over time."

"Autopilot" is not the same thing as full self-driving. What don't you understand? Those statements make perfect sense.

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

"WILL NEED". What is not clear? "Will" implies future tense.

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

#586

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:33 PM UTC

seppel wrote: post #235

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plowing you into an obstacle is what you get when you maintain your existing course and speed without regard for what's in front of you. "Forward" is a direction. And whether you call it cruise control or not, the definition still matches a thing the car actually does. It has lane keep assist too.

The thing is: Cruise control maintains the speed without human supervision. Lane keep assist does not keep in a lane without human supervision (hence it is only assist).

> The thing is: Cruise control maintains the speed without human supervision.

At which point you would immediately veer off the highway and smash into an overpass, so no it doesn't.

It maintains speed without human involvement, which is the same thing lane keep assist does. It steers the car to keep it in the lane. Presumably even if the lane goes out to a pier and dumps the car in the sea.

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

#587

Post by valine » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #567

valine wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 driv…

The features do work though, navigate on autopilot is great. Sure there is a potential for misuse but that’s true for any car, cars are just inherently dangerous.

Overall Tesla’s have great safety ratings. Can you show me hard data that autopilot makes the car measurably less safe? If anything I would guess that it makes good drivers better.

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

#588

Post by avereveard » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

natch wrote: post #579

amznthrwaway wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2014: in a year https://www.theverge.com/2014/10/2/6894875/elon-musk-says-ne... 2015: in two years https://fortune.com/2015/12/21/elon-musk-interview/ 2016: in a year https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-autonomous-tesla-d... 2017: in two years https://electrek.co/2017/12/08/elon-musk-tesla-self-driving-... 2018: in a year https://electrek.co/2018/03/11/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-self-driv... 2019: in a year https://ww…

Are you really taking these as promises? Link 1: "will probably" Link 2: "I think" Link 3: "He said he expected…" and "It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available" Link 4: "He predicts" Link 5: "He thinks" Link 6: "I think" And in some of these he's not talking about production cars, but is talking about prototype vehicles in Tesla's development fleet.

turbocapitalists insisting that a "maybe" relieve people from their claims is the reason why progressive countries have laws against misleading advertisements separate from contract law.

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

#589

Post by dragontamer » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 6:14 PM UTC

valine wrote: post #587

dragontamer wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 driv…

The features do work though, navigate on autopilot is great. Sure there is a potential for misuse but that’s true for any car, cars are just inherently dangerous. Overall Tesla’s have great safety ratings. Can you show me hard data that autopilot makes the car measurably less safe? If anything I would guess that it makes good drivers better.

> The features do work though

Not according to the German courts they don't. That's why Tesla's marketing was just banned there. Its not "full self driving", not by any definition of the word.

If you don't like it, take it up with the German courts. Despite being from America, I think the Germans did the right thing here.

Call it what it is: automated lane assist. Automated lane centering. Etc. etc. Don't lie about it. That's where the line is drawn.

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

#590

Post by bumby » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 7:14 PM UTC

emn13 wrote: post #548

buran77 wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pi…

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…

You are correct. There is a concept in more traditional engineering called “human factors”, meaning you have to include humans (and their limitations) in the design.

Expecting a human to remain attentive all the time is like using a sensor outside it’s linearity range to detect and mitigate a hazard. Good initiative but bad implementation and possibly a gap in the design culture

https://sma.nasa.gov/sma-disciplines/human-factors