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

141–150 of 394 posts

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

#141

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

pcurve wrote: post #131

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has several investigations open, including a probe into why Teslas seem to disproportionately crash into emergency vehicles parked on the roadside. The agency has set no public timeline for a determination." I wonder if this is the case of the U.S regulators turning their blind eyes to the problem as to not jeopardize Tesla's standing in the global EV market, much t…

I'd guess that the 'free market' should apply punitive action by losing them customers, but that relies on customers having (or even wanting) accurate information. I guess they get round some of the issues by having the autopilot transfer control to the driver just before crashing and can then pin the blame on them.

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

#142

Post by manicennui »

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'm sorry, but your wife should lose her license if she is truly that bad, and she should be required to take further training to get it back.

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

#143

Post by lambda »

Advertising and selling a feature that you don't have sure seems like fraud to me.

If it's "the feature is nearly ready but just needs some polish" there's an argument to be made that maybe you were just being a bit too hopeful. But "years and lots of fundamental research away, and we're not even sure what sensor systems were going to rely on", that's just fraud. You're looking for early stage investors, not customer preorders, at that point.

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

#145

Post by joenathanone »

bagels wrote: post #58

Tesla's lawyers state: "mere failure to realize a long-term, aspirational goal is not fraud" They intentionally neglect to acknowledge musk's many specific claims that involved specific timelines, as opposed to the nebulous long term aspirations they allude to.

If FSD had been described as "a long-term, aspirational goal" I never would have purchased it, and I think many others would feel the same way.

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

#146

Post by notahacker »

derac wrote: post #21
jakelazaroff wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't necessarily disagree, but I offer a couple of counterarguments: A. Most people who bought this knew what it was, that it was unfinished, and they were funding the research (which is a public good to some extent) B. There should be some degree of burden on the customer to research what they are buying, especially with a claim as extraordinary as "Full Self-Driving"

The research burden might lie with the customer for "don't take your hands off the wheel just because if you ignore the instructions it sounds like something an 'autopilot' would let you do"

But I don't think it's true for believing the car company CEO when he repeatedly said that the car came equipped with all the necessary hardware for full self driving, and if you purchased the $15000 package the full self driving software would be with you by the end of the year, with most of the remaining obstacles being regulatory...

It's a bit like consumers have a responsibility to read the label on medical devices to use them properly, but they don't have a responsibility to advance their medical understanding to the point they can tell if Elizabeth Holmes is telling the truth about her product actually doing what she said it was doing.

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

#147

Post by snek_case »

lawn wrote: post #120
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…

That you're surprised that it managed drive door to door is telling. And not in the positive way you want to make it seem.

It's very different from the approach taken by Waymo and Cruise. Tesla's FSD uses vision only, and it's available everywhere in the US and Canada. The fact that it can complete most drives successfully (~90% of the time) without intervention in any city in the US or Canada is pretty impressive IMO.

The parent poster is right, I've been watching the progress and it's gotten probably 20 to 50 times more reliable in the last year.

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

#148

Post by wpietri »

coolbreezetft22 wrote: post #77
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…

At this point I'd imagine Tesla is better off with Musk being distracted by his shiny new toy. Though I'd be concerned about the effect he is having on their brand image. Even two years ago I was on the verge of buying a Tesla but ended up cancelling my order in large part because I just couldn't stand the obnoxiousness of Elon and he has gotten orders of magnitude worse since then. His new "demographic"/cult also se…

> At this point I'd imagine Tesla is better off with Musk being distracted by his shiny new toy.

I think that's probably correct. One question I find interesting: What is Musk actually good at?

He's clearly good at hype-driven PR and painting himself as a Tony Stark character. That has been great for Tesla; he's been able to raise gobs of money cheaply. Money that apparently kept Telsa from going bankrupt. [1] But that genius for hype also makes it harder to figure out other skills.

Looking at his track record, he got fired from Zip2 and PayPal. The jury's still out on Telsa; it recently got into the black, but it has always had its troubles, and its first-mover advantage is eroding. As is its stock price, down by half recently, something surely not helped by Musk's delusional promises (e.g., 1 million Tesla robotaxis by the end of 2020). The Boring Company and Neuralink both look troubled. [2] [3] And of course Twitter is an extremely public clusterfuck.

That only leaves SpaceX as possible evidence that he's good at anything other than hype and raising money. But recently a former SpaceX intern posted about his experience there [4], saying "Elon was basically a child king. He was an important figurehead who provided the company with the money, power, and PR, but he didn’t have the knowledge or (frankly) maturity to handle day-to-day decision making and everyone knew that. He was surrounded by people whose job was, essentially, to manipulate him into making good decisions."

So I think what we're seeing with Twitter is the real Elon. And yeah, if I were at Telsa trying to pivot from hype-driven startup to solid company able to compete with everybody from GM to Toyota to BMW, I would much rather Musk stayed at Twitter.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/musk-tesla-was-about-a-month...

[2] https://jalopnik.com/elon-musks-boring-company-leaves-local-...

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/06/elon-mu...

[4] https://www.tumblr.com/numberonecatwinner/701567544684855296...

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

#149

Post by jcranmer »

mch82 wrote: post #122
jakelazaroff wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

> I’m not sure how the phrase “full self-driving” could mean anything other than that.

There is some room to argue about the conditions under which the car can drive itself. If the car couldn't handle a high-grade, winding mountain road with an inch of snow on the ground and yet more coming down, I don't think too many people would be fussed is a "full self-driving" car said "uh, no" (especially as a good fraction of drivers couldn't handle that either).

To my end, if the car can't handle any condition that doesn't make me go "I think I should stay home," that should disqualify it.

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

#150

Post by detaro »

epgui wrote: post #91
bagels wrote: post #58

Tesla's lawyers state: "mere failure to realize a long-term, aspirational goal is not fraud" They intentionally neglect to acknowledge musk's many specific claims that involved specific timelines, as opposed to the nebulous long term aspirations they allude to.

Claims about what will happen in the future and on what timeline are obviously speculative and best guesses at best. No reasonable person would interpret them any other way.

A reasonable person might come to the conclusion that they weren't "best guesses" though, but instead knowingly misrepresenting the situation.
Post reply on HN