Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 85 posts

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#21

Post by NegativeLatency »

tremon wrote: post #10
inversefft wrote: post #9

I have no issue with the term autopilot. Boeing sells planes with autopilot, no one expects them to be fully autonomous. The FSD name makes more sense for the software they've got in public beta than their current offering. Interestingly the only difference between "enhanced autopilot" and FSD right now is the ability to stop at stop lights.

Boeing doesn't sell to consumers, their customers are large companies. There's quite a difference in the level of knowledge/competence to be expected between those two markets. So "this is fine in B2B" does not automatically translate into "this is fine when targeting John Q Public".

Speaking of aviation this is a great pilot training on automation dependence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ESJH1NLMLs

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#22

Post by belorn »

inversefft wrote: post #9

I have no issue with the term autopilot. Boeing sells planes with autopilot, no one expects them to be fully autonomous. The FSD name makes more sense for the software they've got in public beta than their current offering. Interestingly the only difference between "enhanced autopilot" and FSD right now is the ability to stop at stop lights.

Word has context and get interpreted by the person reading or hearing it. Advertisement is only misleading if people get mislead, which is subjective and involve judgement calls both on the reader but also by the legal system that think that people get mislead.

Pilot use technical terms that they learn in both training but also in the culture around pilots. Words used by pilots in that context can have a different meaning than the literal interpretation of those word outside that context by non-pilots. The jargon is different, and thus advertisement towards pilots using that jargon will be interpreted in that context. The word "autopilot" directed towards pilots will be interpreted in that context, meaning they will expect the technology to work as training and culture has made them to expect.

Driver training is very different from pilot training, and the jargon and lingo is different from pilots. An car with autopilot that is limited to work with the restrictions of a airplane autopilot, ie only work at airport or while high in the air, would likely not be what the driver expected. The same word but different context.

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#23

Post by umeshunni »

inversefft wrote: post #13
tremon wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing doesn't sell to consumers, their customers are large companies. There's quite a difference in the level of knowledge/competence to be expected between those two markets. So "this is fine in B2B" does not automatically translate into "this is fine when targeting John Q Public".

Last I checked drivers are still required to be licensed and understand the functionality of their cars.

Yes, but they're not being trained on a specific car model like pilots are.

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#24

Post by adoxyz »

misiti3780 wrote: post #18
jrmg wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Full self driving” isn’t just ambiguous, it’s fraudulent. The car can in no way fully ‘drive’ itself unless you define ‘driving’ as not including many things that are universally thought of as necessary skills to operate a car. [edit: rereading your comment, I see we’re actually in agreement!]

How is it fraudulent - they dont claim to be selling L5 FSD?

On Tesla's website under the Autopilot page, there is a video that opens up with "The car is doing all the driving. The driver is just there for legal purposes"

https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

That paired with the name of "Full Self Driving" really does a good job of implying that the car drivers itself...

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#25

Post by belkinpower »

misiti3780 wrote: post #18
jrmg wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Full self driving” isn’t just ambiguous, it’s fraudulent. The car can in no way fully ‘drive’ itself unless you define ‘driving’ as not including many things that are universally thought of as necessary skills to operate a car. [edit: rereading your comment, I see we’re actually in agreement!]

How is it fraudulent - they dont claim to be selling L5 FSD?

Words have meanings. If you call something “full self-driving” you can’t get upset when people assume it means full self-driving.

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#26

Post by chmod600 »

culi wrote: post #20

Before Tesla came out with autopilot, Google had done extensive user research on "autopilot" cars and found that no matter how many times you tell users that they must be fully attentive, people WILL go on their phones or stop paying attention. It's the entire reason Google didn't go to market with their technology before Tesla Then Musk came along and completely ignored the research (which he must've been really awa…

Are Teslas more lethal per mile than other cars?

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#27

Post by pessimizer »

inversefft wrote: post #13
tremon wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing doesn't sell to consumers, their customers are large companies. There's quite a difference in the level of knowledge/competence to be expected between those two markets. So "this is fine in B2B" does not automatically translate into "this is fine when targeting John Q Public".

Last I checked drivers are still required to be licensed and understand the functionality of their cars.

They've incorporated the best practices for managing the limitations of Tesla's autopilot into driving tests now? Glad to hear it.

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#28

Post by aNoob7000 »

inversefft wrote: post #13
tremon wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing doesn't sell to consumers, their customers are large companies. There's quite a difference in the level of knowledge/competence to be expected between those two markets. So "this is fine in B2B" does not automatically translate into "this is fine when targeting John Q Public".

Last I checked drivers are still required to be licensed and understand the functionality of their cars.

LOL - They don't have to be licensed specifically on a Tesla. They can show up in a Toyota Tercel from 1999 and take their test.

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#29

Post by misiti3780 »

belkinpower wrote: post #25
misiti3780 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it fraudulent - they dont claim to be selling L5 FSD?

Words have meanings. If you call something “full self-driving” you can’t get upset when people assume it means full self-driving.

So just so I understand, you think there are Tesla owners that think they have Full self driving because the Tesla website calls it FSD?

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#30

Post by ra7 »

culi wrote: post #20

Before Tesla came out with autopilot, Google had done extensive user research on "autopilot" cars and found that no matter how many times you tell users that they must be fully attentive, people WILL go on their phones or stop paying attention. It's the entire reason Google didn't go to market with their technology before Tesla Then Musk came along and completely ignored the research (which he must've been really awa…

Here is the video of that Google experiment you mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ePWBBrWSzo

Google had hands-free driving working on highways a decade ago, but decided they didn't want to take the incremental approach of L2 -> L3 -> L4 exactly for the reasons you mentioned and jumped straight to making L4 (fully driverless) work.

Post reply on HN