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

Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 394 posts

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#121

Post by idlewords »

nostrademons wrote: post #115

I view self-driving cars (along with drones, ubiquitous encryption, and distributed manufacturing) as "post-WW3 technologies". The same way that atomic energy, computers, jet engines, and interstate highways were "post-WW2 technologies". These are things that could be done with current technology, but the current state of infrastructure & societal organization makes them uneconomical, and no single private firm has t…

If large infrastructure changes are in the mix, then the self-driving problem is trivially solved using a pair of metal guide rails. They also greatly increase the cargo capacity of the vehicle, a win-win.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#122

Post by mch82 »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #4
MichaelZuo wrote: post #2

It might be a plausible argument for stuff sold 6 years ago when the future was uncertain. But in 2022 I'm not seeing how it's plausible as an excuse. Considering it's still being sold and marketed as 'Full self driving'. Clearly even level 4 autonomy is far beyond what any near future technology is capable of. If at the very least due to the fact that a very commonly encountered condition, construction work, effecti…

Pretend you don’t know anything about the different levels. You’re just a random person looking to buy a car. What does “full self driving” sound like to you?

To me, “full self driving” has always meant the car has a built-in cab driver so I can work while the car drives to my parents for dinner 6 hours away, then sleep while the car drives me home. I’m not sure how the phrase “full self-driving” could mean anything other than that.

Edit: When I pre-ordered a Model 3 Musk’s promise at that time was literally “press a button and your car will work as a taxi to earn money when you’re not using it”.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#126

Post by option »

perardi wrote: post #19

Well fortunately Tesla has a laser-focused CEO that is devoting his time to making sure a feature which he clearly stated was absolutely critical is being responsibly developed and marketed. Really grateful for that—I’d hate to think this publicly traded company that had a sky-high valuation that was, in part, based off this promise was being led by somebody who is off in the weeds worried about social media or somet…

his duty as CEO is to deliver value for shareholders. He has been doing OK so far ;)

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#127

Post by ghaff »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #97

I’m been on the fsd beta for a long time now and I have to say it’s remarkably improved over the last year. If it continues to improve at this rate for another year it’s going to be pretty useful. I use it to drive around seattle (which is a difficult driving place with randomly followed infrastructure standards and randomly driving drivers and randomly parked cars) and it used to be a death defying gripping of the s…

I was in one a couple months ago. My friend likes it but was also clear that you have to pay attention to what it's doing because it makes regular mistakes.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#128

Post by mrtksn »

qzw wrote: post #17

You know, where Theranos went wrong was not selling some other thing and then tack on their “Full blood test in just one drop” thing as an add-on. Oh and making sure it’s labeled beta . That’s very important.

If you look at the track record of Musk, you can see that he promises something futuristic and delivers something conventional but with improvements that's still desirable.

Haven't Holmes imitated Jobs but Musk, today she could have been a success story. She should have still promised all your tests from a single drop of blood and keep claiming that it's coming next year and deliver classical machines but with greatly improved usability, integration with the modern hospital management system and fart jokes. They even had a prototype that worked some of the time for some of the test, sell it at an outrageous price and warn the users that all the tests should be repeated on a traditional machine because this is a beta device.

Also She shouldn't have relied on people from the establishment for PR, she should have partnered with popular-science YouTubers. Just send them a machine to play with, they wouldn't know if the machine is any good - they will be grateful for having access to such a device and make it the cool way of testing your blood.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#129

Post by thordenmark »

Tesla cars are sold on the value as they are now. The potential features of the future are only an interesting possibility. It's not that different from any hardware/software on the market. Sure, Photoshop might have full self-driving AI that magically makes images for you someday (and Adobe does promise some big things), but people buy Photoshop for what it can do right now.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#130

Post by haswell »

strawhatguy wrote: post #103
ncr100 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel our government should regulate this kind of speech more aggressively, to boost the safety of the public. The messaging by Tesla has been misleading, yes. There have been many other examples of couching date-slippage and over-promises with phrases like "no promises but Cybertruck|FSD|Model 3|Rockets|AI|Robotics|Neural-Link|End-Of-The-World should be here in two years." Announcing a capability, and importantly M…

No. I stopped at “the government should…” That never goes the way you think it will.

It is fine (and correct) to be cautious about any situation where the government gets involved and starts setting limits.

But to discard an argument entirely is to bury your head in the sand.

Regulations are applied to many industries and limit the kinds of claims that can be made about products, and those regulations are important to public safety.

Such regulations most often apply to products that involve life or death consequences.

A company marketing vitamin supplements can’t claim that the supplements are proven to cure cancer, and that’s a good thing.

This is not to say that the government can’t or doesn’t get things wrong. But I’m curious how you feel about limitations placed on financial, food, and pharmaceutical companies.

At a minimum, there’s a fraud angle. You shouldn’t be able to claim to sell something that does A when that thing cannot in fact do A.

And when A happens to be critical to not dying, the implications of that claim just raise the stakes even higher.

Post reply on HN