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

271–280 of 394 posts

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

#271

Post by amf12 »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #219
Shubham28 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/full-autonomy-waymo-driver#:~:text...

Level 4 means full autonomy over all normal driving conditions. Waymo does not handle complex construction sites like a normal human driver would, a fact verifiable by many thousands of people. It does not have level 4 autonomy. Looks like the article got backlash too because the editor inserted an editor's note in quite large font right in the middle of the article clarifying it.

> Level 4 means full autonomy over all normal driving conditions.

Aren't you describing Level 5?

From what I see online, Level 4 means

"The car can operate without human input or oversight but only under select conditions defined by factors such as road type or geographic area"

Waymo has been operating geo-fenced self-driving cars without drivers present. It may not handle complex situations, but that isn't expected out of L4.

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

#272

Post by TomSwirly »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #249
lawn wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fact you’re not surprised that a car can drive itself is telling. And not in the positive way you want to make it seem. It’s magic man. You’re jaded, and have set the goal posts too far and likely increasingly far. WRT delivery timing, who amongst us had delivered a complex R&D heavy software project on time? I’m not an Elon fan boy but I respect he laid out a vision and worked to execute on it. That he didn’t hi…

> You’re jaded

No, the question is whether Musk committed fraud by selling _in 2016_ self-driving car software which he is still unable to deliver in 2022, and the answer is YES whether or not you are "jaded".

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

#273

Post by anigbrowl »

gumboza wrote: post #165
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…

He does run a cult. My father finds Musk entirely reputable. I am currently subject to at least a 30 minute call a day from him, a retired model S owner, who has nothing left in his life other than the Tesla. The calls are 30 minutes of him reeling off Tesla PR bollocks. He chased everyone he knew away, speaks of nothing else and cannot see reason or error in this or any of Musk's things. He thinks the Twitter thing…

I am so sorry. I don't know what to advise other than talking to a family lawyer. Regrettably, the highly networked society we have collectively created has spawned its own sort of mass media and cultishness has become widespread because it is easy and profitable to engineer.

I don't know what to suggest for your situation - maybe talk to a family lawyer? I have the impression that the NHS is probably not up to providing the kind of mental health support needed to deal with a broad spectrum social problem.

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

#274

Post by epgui »

bagels wrote: post #236
epgui wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"If you give me $10,000 today, tomorrow I will deliver your car" ... Three years later: "I'll deliver your car tomorrow"

Sounds like a contract with specific terms! If we’re going to look at this as a contract, we’re going to need more than intuition: we’re going to need some contract law, and we’re probably going to need to look at all the disclosures and fine print involved in the purchase of FSD.

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

#275

Post by rainbowzootsuit »

fundad wrote: post #200
jdminhbg wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I had the same exact response and cancelled mine around the time of the tweets about the Pelosi attack he made. Sorry to be so blunt, but I find this level of online political attachment to be completely deranged. Either it's a good car or not.

I think another post alluded to this but if Tesla gets in trouble the cars will likely be bricked right? If the viability of the company relies on the hype machine then it’s pretty relevant what kj d of person is “renting” me the car

I've not studied this specifically but I do have a general interest in the complex control systems now in cars —and I try to avoid them.

I think that, from watching the likes or Rich Rebuilds, who ostensibly operates without any approval from tesla, the cars will run without the internet but I guess they'd become "feature complete" and when modules die it will be on the car hacking community to pick up the mantle.

Traditional cars aren't in a much better position as somewhat superfluous modules (think a radio head unit) can take down one of the many CANbus networks in your car and leave it a brick.

Many (most?) auto techs are not well versed identifying these types of low level problems and will fall back to firing the parts cannon at the car rather than identifying the issue definitively. Just like in Battleship you can get a hit by random guessing but this is a waste of money and resources.

The random superfluous modules also become unavailable and if they're critical to making the car start then your car might be out of commission for the foreseeable future. GM and Ford just don't have as much of a social media halo around them.

You do see a few headlines around particularly egregious money digs, like one company making remote start a subscription feature. That module and the car it's in is not built to last in my view.

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

#276

Post by dnissley »

gumboza wrote: post #239
dnissley wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We find ourselves living in a vetocracy, where very little groundbreaking work actually gets done. Critics rule the roost at this current cultural moment. So there's a lot of pent-up energy that will be rewarded to anyone able to articulate a concrete positive vision for the future. Of course people are going to bow down and worship the one guy actually making progress against all odds. The only other person might be…

I think we need to look at the assumptions made. Has Musk and Zuck actually improved the world or merely reorganised it to gain market for their ideological purposes? Delivery or not doesn't imply improvement. Progress for the sake of progress is not necessarily an improvement either.

Yes and no. Yes, progress for the sake of progress isn't strictly an improvement.

On the other hand conditions are ever changing and our knowledge of the world changes our understanding of those conditions. To me these things nearly always imply that we should act in some direction to improve our lot. I don't see many people willing to put in the work. I see a lot of people willing to sit on the sideline and talk about how the people on the field are dumb or what they're doing obviously won't work, and that they are evil scheming villains who will surely change the world for the worst for their own benefit.

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

#277

Post by maxbond »

dnissley wrote: post #250
maxbond wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you kindly present an argument as to why one should believe we are living in a vetocracy? I see people pursuing all manner of projects all the time, I don't really buy that the world has been narrowed by criticism. What I see limiting people's ability to pursue projects they're passionate about is a lack of funding and opportunity.

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228469/marc-andreessen-build... See also: The Revolt of the Public by Martin Gurri which focuses a lot on the criticism issue

I found this thoroughly unconvincing.

A billionaire tells his critics they should build stuff instead of criticize him, as if their opportunities to do so are equivalent, and as of criticism and building stuff are mutually exclusive? That doesn't hold a drop of water.

We didn't have enough respirators because of critics? My recollection is that we failed to invoke the Defense Production Act and impress companies into building them. This was based on the values of the Trump administration (who saw this as a violation of free market principles) and not an overabundance of criticism; as an executive order, it would have been immune to veto.

The piece goes on to argue the federal government is a vetocracy, and I can agree that Congress is in a state of gridlock like 90% of the time. But that isn't because of critics, that's because of party politics and deficiencies in the structure of Congress. This is a cynical power play to sabotage one's opponents, not criticism run amok.

I can agree that there's "vetocracy" in the sense of gridlock, but when you say "critics rule the roost," I remain unconvinced. Perhaps the answer is to be found in the book you recommend, I have not taken a look at that yet.

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

#278

Post by MichaelZuo »

amf12 wrote: post #271
MichaelZuo wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Level 4 means full autonomy over all normal driving conditions. Waymo does not handle complex construction sites like a normal human driver would, a fact verifiable by many thousands of people. It does not have level 4 autonomy. Looks like the article got backlash too because the editor inserted an editor's note in quite large font right in the middle of the article clarifying it.

> Level 4 means full autonomy over all normal driving conditions. Aren't you describing Level 5? From what I see online, Level 4 means "The car can operate without human input or oversight but only under select conditions defined by factors such as road type or geographic area" Waymo has been operating geo-fenced self-driving cars without drivers present. It may not handle complex situations, but that isn't expected…

Level 5 means full autonomy over all known driving conditions. Including dirt roads, etc.

Otherwise there would need to be a level 6.

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

#279

Post by maxbond »

poszlem wrote: post #265
maxbond wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It sounds like you are afflicted with the same affliction as your dad Are you going to tell me with a straight face you didn't tell them there was something wrong with them ("diagnose them")?

Was what he was describing a disease? Because I don't believe in diagnosing diseases based on a few sentences.

You literally described it as an affliction. If you prefer the criticism to be, "don't pathologize someone based on a few sentences," fine, don't pathologize someone based on a few sentences.

If your stated belief is real, then I'd encourage you to reflect on why you were willing to violate this principle, and why, after being challenged on it, you deflected.

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

#280

Post by rurp »

> “The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not driving anything. The car is driving itself.”

> Tesla workers later revealed that the video was fabricated, done in multiple takes, with the driving system’s failures removed, including a crash into a fence. The video remains on Tesla’s website.

Hah, despite all of the Tesla news I somehow missed that this video was a fake and that the car crashed into a fence while filming.

Post reply on HN