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

151–160 of 394 posts

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

#151

Post by crote »

sidcool wrote: post #117

The argument is being taken out of context. Not saying that FSD is flawless. But Tesla isn't calling it a failure. They are saying it's not yet achieved. And it's a perfectly sane legal argument. Again, this does not mean Tesla is right here, just that the title is a misrepresentation of their argument.

How long should they be given to deliver?

FSD was first sold 6 years ago. The FSD hardware has a warranty of 4 years. The average car lasts about 11 years.

Tesla no longer guarantees the functionality of the hardware, yet has failed to deliver the software. They are inching towards failing to deliver during the car's economic lifespan. Legally, would it be acceptable for them to deliver in 2032, when the first cars sold with FSD have long been scrapped?

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

#152

Post by alexcosan »

demarq wrote: post #94
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…

> responsibly developed and marketed It is not being developed It has been irresponsibly marketed as this is the entire premise of the class action. It sounds like he is laser focused on impressive promises to lure investments into his money making empire.

I'm very confident the whole comment by OP is of sarcastic nature

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

#153

Post by FireBeyond »

epgui wrote: post #83

The failure to understand the context of the quote is palpable in both the article and comments. This is a standard legal argument used as a defence against allegations of fraud, and it’s not a judgment of how successful (or not) the product is. The only thing it means is “notwithstanding whether we’ve achieved our goals, we have been honest and well-intentioned”.

> we have been honest

Well, that's also the thing - internal docs and interviews have shown that Musk was well aware that "FSD will be here, this year", year after year, was not ever going to be true.

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

#154

Post by dragonwriter »

wpietri wrote: post #148
coolbreezetft22 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> Looking at his track record, he got fired from Zip2 and PayPal

Technically, no, he got fired as CEO from X.com twice, once before it had PayPal as a product, once after it bought Confinity which had PayPal as a product. X.com became PayPal right after the second time he was fired, so he never actually got fired from (or worked for) PayPal.

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

#155

Post by sudhirj »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #95
SCAQTony wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would venture to say that attempting to climb Mount Everest and failing but saying you had indeed climbed Mount Everest would be a fraud. How many times did Elon Musk say he climbed "Mount Everest" or "we have a fully self driving car now" when Tesla didn't?

More like, selling the Everest experience but failing to equip yourself with oxygen, climbing axes, etc., and not arranging for transport anywhere near the mountain. Instead, travelling to a idyllic mountain retreat 500 miles away. And then watching a video on a big screen of someone climbing. Definitely a contrast between the sales pitch and reality.

That sounds uncharitable. The Tesla ML model is among the best on the market right now, with millions of miles of training video, lots of FLOPs spent on training and a top-tier engineering team, no?

Let’s say the system responds correctly to X% of stimuli, what’s the delta here? We do know that effort and difficulty increases exponentially as we approach 100%, but what’s fraud here? That someone thought they’d hit 99.999999% already but only hit 99.9%?

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

#156

Post by nostrademons »

idlewords wrote: post #121
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.

There's still a product requirement missing there, which is the ability to get to lots of different places.

I think there's a lot of economic logic in a vehicle that can navigate easily constructed roads - without any smart devices embedded in them - and yet still needs metaphorical guiderails for the exceptions like construction zones and downtown populated areas. That still keeps road construction cheap (just asphalt and paint!) but gets you 100% of the way to where you want to be. If you add rails you need to lay them everywhere that a road is now, and you need switches at each intersection.

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

#157

Post by holmesworcester »

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.

OP is talking about being surprised by steady progress to a major human achievement, one that could save a million lives for starters, but also one that in its mature state (where robots can visually interpret and navigate 3d space) unlocks even more labor saving automation than cars, busses, and trains put together.

It has the dark side of military uses, sure, but given how developed our tools for blind destruction already are, robots that can see the world will make a much bigger dent on the positive side.

Progress on this is genuinely exciting and people should let themselves feel that even if they don't like Elon Musk.

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

#158

Post by slg »

crote wrote: post #136
slg wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk is a charlatan, but why do people act like it is common to buy $40k+ cars like picking up some gum in the checkout aisle? What the features name sounds like is not the only factor here. People don’t buys cars with that lack of thought. What the salespeople say, what the marketing material says, what the manual says, what the CEO says in public, what the feature feels like during a test drive should all matter mo…

This isn't a "9 out of 10 dentists recommend using our product" situation, and cellphone companies have been sued for failing to deliver true unlimited plans. It is being marketed as "Full Self Driving", and the CEO is publicly saying it is "in beta", "coming next year", and "just waiting for regulatory approval". In reality it needs constant driver supervision, is still primitive enough that it is directly linked to…

Your comment helps prove my point because you didn’t stop at just the name. It takes more than “the name is a misleading” to be considered fraud. Tesla is guilty of more than just giving the feature a bad name. If you are arguing fraud, mention those other things. Because people don’t spend $40k+ based off a name of a feature.

I can still go to Verizon’s website today and find “Unlimited” plans so the name clearly wasn’t the problem in whatever lawsuits they might have been involved in.

And to reiterate, my point is not that Tesla is innocent. My point is that the most common argument used to point to their guilt is a stupid argument, especially considering there are better arguments available to argue the same underlying point.

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

#159

Post by MontyCarloHall »

manicennui wrote: post #142
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.

I wonder what her insurance rate is, and why it’s not so astronomically high that it causes her to reconsider her driving habits.

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

#160

Post by djaychela »

gitfan86 wrote: post #96
coolbreezetft22 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is totally fine if you don't like Elon, but in the real world there isn't an EV that is cheap and available and has a good charging network. The ID4 is decent but that company was started by actual Hitler and Nazis, so if you are interested in not buying from companies that have a history of evil leadership that one isn't a good option. And gas cars are not good for CO2 emissions, so sometimes you have to accept t…

>It is totally fine if you don't like Elon, but in the real world there isn't an EV that is cheap and available and has a good charging network.

My Renault Zoe would like a word with you. Cheaper than a tesla (in not rich, and I bought one), available, and can charge everywhere.

Post reply on HN