Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

301–310 of 394 posts

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

#301
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about non California weather? I imagine radar might handle fog, but driving rain as in Carolina or serious snow as in Canada?

The rain can be no joke here. I've had to stop driving and pull over for the first time in my life after moving to NC. The rain was too heavy to see more than 10 feet or so.

> The rain was too heavy to see more than 10 feet or so.

Probably a hurricane. Did you see any cattle flying?

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

#302
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.

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…

Other solutions are geofenced, not because they could not ostensibly function in other environments, but because it is criminally reckless to do so. Allowing a safety-critical system under test to operate in unvalidated situations is stupid. Allowing a safety-critical system in development that is currently unsafe to operate to be operated by untrained customers in unvalidated environments is criminal.

Waymo had a fully driverless test vehicle in 2015, before Tesla Autopilot was even released. That is a superior system in a specific operational domain. They continued improving it for years with multiple order of magnitude improvements before allowing customers to use it in the same, highly constrained operational domain. Only Tesla is reckless enough to look at a product as good as what Waymo had 7 years ago, decide to ship it, and expand the operational domain to untested situations while they are at it.

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

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Milton from Nikola would be better example in my opinion. You had him rolling a truck down the hill to show it works despite at the time it was still technology in development (company is still doing progress now). It still shocks me he is going to prison for that as a fraud when it was just a commercial. I don't know if you know - but classical trick in advertising food is using cigarette smoke instead of hot steam…

No, McDonald’s execs don’t go to prison because they can actually deliver the product they advertise. Between the statements “Here’s a burger you can eat it” and “here’s a truck look at it go”, only one is a lie.

Only lie here is that their commercial said "here is a truck look at it go". Have you ever even watched it before commenting??

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

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I am not an Elon fan or anything, but I don't think you can say the jury is out on Tesla. Tesla is the first successful new car company manufacturing in the US in more than fifty years. It changed people's perception of electric cars and changed the car market. Even if it has a ton of troubles going forward it will be a very valuable company. I think you have to give him his due for that.

It is perfectly possible that Tesla will be marginal or out of business within a decade.

Tesla did a good job hyping electric cars and selling them to an early-adopter market when they had no real competition. But now that the market is proven and the discussion has shifted, every major car company and a bunch of other players, possibly including Apple, are going after the much bigger mainstream market. If you look now at Consumer Reports and their recommended BEV cars, Tesla only has 1 of the 5 models listed, and its score is a middling 78, behind the 91 for the Kia EV6 and the 84 for the Genesis GV60. Once the rest of the competition has a few years to iterate, the picture could be significantly worse for them.

It's possible that Tesla could be the Google of electric cars, where first-mover advantage leads to decades of dominance. But it's also possible that they could be a Groupon or a Pebble: companies that were initially leaders and darlings, but that couldn't keep up over the long term.

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

#305
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do this in practically every EU country, not to mention Asia (I don't know about other parts of the globe) via trains. I don't get why it has to be a car. It's just that the US has zero infrastructure for both inter city as well as intra city public transport outside of like 4 cities.

The US has one of the most extensive rail networks in the world. What we do differently than Europe is use the rail network almost exclusively for freight. If we followed Europe's lead and did a lot more freight via long haul truck, we could free up a bunch of infrastructure for passengers, but would the end result be a net win? Or would we actually increase emissions by doing that?

There is absolutely no reason to make that tradeoff. If a rail line is hitting maximum capacity, then that means there's plenty of money going around to expand it. Adding more passenger trains does not require decreasing the amount of freight trains. That's not the reason we're bad at doing passenger rail.

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

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

He was also fired from Zip2, which was a separate company. You are technically correct that PayPal at the time was called X.com, but it's still the same company.

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

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is what people aren't paying attention to. The rate of progress over only 1 year is astounding. Driving with FSD supervised by a driver already makes driving far safer and far less stressful. The car has a situational awareness that humans can't match. It's only a matter of time until most drives have 0 disengagements due to human discomfort/awkwardness.

> The car has a situational awareness that humans can't match.

Weird that there are so many videos of Teslas randomly breaking or turning haphazardly then.

Also, the self driving is in the dangerous zone, where it's good enough so the driver will zone out, but bad enough that it's very dangerous to do so.

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

#308
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterargument to myself: Elon sold it with a claim that it would skyrocket the value of the vehicles.

I never did understand how that passed the sniff test. Unleashing a fleet of self driving robotaxis wouldn't skryrocket the value of anything, it would be the fastest race to the bottom in memory.

That particular aspect passes the sniff test for me. The race would only go so fast with a million cars produced per year, only some of which would be participating.

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

#309
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.

[citation needed]

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

#310
post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, it's a scam to sell X "coming next year" and six years later, not to have it. > I can still go to Verizon’s website today and find “Unlimited” plans That other scams exist doesn't negate that.

> I'm sorry, it's a scam to sell X "coming next year" and six years later, not to have it. Where did I state otherwise? Once again, all these comments are reinforcing my point which is that there are plenty of more concrete complaints to make about this than “Autopilot is a misleading name”. I don’t know how many times I need to say I’m not defending Tesla. I am criticizing a bad argument. But I guess I should just a…

You said: we really need a better argument than the same “the name sounds misleading when you first hear it” argument that has been repeated for years now

We do have that. We have a very thorough argument, and it has been repeated endlessly. So that's why you got downvoted.

Post reply on HN