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

321–330 of 394 posts

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

#321

Post by slg »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #310
slg wrote: 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. 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.

Context matters. Reread the comment to which that was a reply. It focused specifically and exclusively on the name so I called out that focus.

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

#322

Post by redox99 »

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…

Yep. After the last few updates, I went from a non-believer (you need LIDAR, vision only autonomy is at least a decade away and tesla fucked up going this route) to actually believing in 2 or 3 years we'll have a very nice and useful level 3 from Tesla, and that vision only is the right approach (because I want this to be affordable, not some tech only robotaxis have).

And I think by 2027 we'll have level 4 vision only.

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

#323

Post by leobg »

csours wrote: post #177
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.

Theranos isn't a failure, they just haven't achieved their goal yet. You can read this any way you want. I do think that Theranos (or another company) may eventually achieve part of the vision of Theranos. Same for FSD.

I love these analogies. Like those people who didn’t buy Amazon stock in 2014 because they remembered WebVan. It’s internet. It’s shopping. They speak of the future. Hence it is exactly the same.

If GPT reasoned like this, you’d snicker about how it “just pretends to be intelligent”, would you not? :)

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

#324

Post by leobg »

bhauer wrote: post #251
electrondood wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. People here are just reacting to the headline and general dislike of Musk.

It's really as bad as Reddit in here. I would expect better from a technical audience.

My thoughts exactly. Every time Tesla comes up. It’s like Reddit with women.

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

#325

Post by amf12 »

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, and have set the goal posts too far and likely increasingly far.

Not the original poster. Tesla has set the goal posts too far, not commenters here. And yet, they are misleading consumers about how far the goal posts are.

People aren't saying Tesla's current features aren't marvelous, but that its not the magic that was promised.

> WRT delivery timing, who amongst us had delivered a complex R&D heavy software project on time.

Probably none of us. However, most of us haven't overpromised on the delivery time when we know that the project will take longer than what we have conveyed.

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

#326

Post by quickthrower2 »

notyourwork wrote: post #316
jcranmer wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There is not room to argue. Unless we call it “Full self-driving*”. Full describes the set of use cases the car can drive in. All of them, not some with conditions and exceptions.

Not many people can fully drive a car then. Which makes sense.

I think excluding off road / hazardous mountain roads etc. might be OK for the definition. And still cover many 9s of actual trips.

Driving into a parked ambulance is definitely a no no though.

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

#327

Post by Dylan16807 »

slg wrote: post #321
Dylan16807 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Context matters. Reread the comment to which that was a reply. It focused specifically and exclusively on the name so I called out that focus.

You didn't focus your comment well enough on that aspect.

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

#328

Post by bagels »

joering2 wrote: post #258
bagels wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Tesla is slightly more comfortable, convenient, and I don't have to commission a whole Apollo program to get one.

That's all true, however... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revolutionary

Prior to Tesla, there was not really any mass market electric car and charging network. Seems revolutionary, since all the other manufacturers are following the lead to make their own electric cars now.

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

#329

Post by MichaelZuo »

sangnoir wrote: post #293
MichaelZuo wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Level 5 means full autonomy over all known driving conditions. Including dirt roads, etc. Otherwise there would need to be a level 6.

What's the difference between "all normal driving conditions" ( your definition of Level 4) and "all known driving conditions" (your definition of L5)?

These are not my definitions, they are the SAE's definitions. As anyone can verify themselves by visiting SAE.org

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

#330

Post by pellucide »

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 got fsd as a donation to self driving research in the off chance .

That's likely the reason majority bought FSD

Post reply on HN