Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

teslarati.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#51

Post by nullc »

JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #30
v0idzer0 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s not pretend Apple, Uber, Google and countless others weren’t spending billions trying to make this a reality. They didn’t burn that money because they were smart enough to know it wasn’t going to happen. Everyone thought it was imminent. Many still do.

Billions of dollars for Apple and Google are within the realm of no-nonsense moonshots given that their core business is very solid. Tesla had to use all their weapons including fraud, exagerations and lies because their core business is the worst business in the world: manufacturing automobiles. So they have essentially nothing to fall back on if FSD fails.

I'm still mystified that tesla isn't mired in lawsuits over this: Some tesla dealers were telling customers that within a few years their self driving tesla would earn back its purchase price from acting as a robotaxi.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#52

Post by endisneigh »

maxerickson wrote: post #27
endisneigh wrote: post #16

Mainstream full self driving would just create massive traffic and gridlock - pointless in the end. The induced demand would outweigh the benefits. States are better off acknowledging that sprawling car dependent cities are not sustainable. High frequency busses in the interim with rail transit is the real solution. Current self driving technology plus some key infrastructure changes with dedicated bus lanes and prio…

Tens of millions of people live in places where frequent bus service simply isn't practical. It's probably reasonable for society to make choices that overall incentivize against living in those areas, but that isn't going to change where people live anytime soon. And you can just use taxes to control any induced demand that comes from lower costs or new behaviors. The vehicles have sophisticated tracking systems and…

Though you're not wrong, in a hypothetical world where most vehicles on the road were self driving busses, the frequency could be dynamically set and reasonable for everyone.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#53

Post by bushbaba »

kube-system wrote: post #36
mythhouse wrote: post #17

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.x... Wow introduced end of feb this year and passed by end of this year. Looking from outside, I am Amazed by the speed of American democracy .

California is a bit of an outlier in that regard.

California has a slow regulatory body. Other states can act even quicker here. For example just see how quickly abortion regulation was made post Supreme Court ruling.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#55

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #14
api wrote: post #2

How much could the recent Musk meltdown be related to FSD just not arriving? It seems like we have reached a point after many years of FSD being “next year” when it’s becoming clear that it’s further away than anyone thought. I’ve thought the difficulty was being vastly underestimated for a while. A reusable Lunar and Mars shuttle system is probably a lot easier than actual FSD.

I think 6 or 7 years ago, many people thought we would at least have something like Waymo's self-driving taxis in Phoenix in several cities, more publicly available, really starting to change transportation. We're not too far behind on that estimate. My guess is in less than 3 years - Waymo will be publicly available in large parts of Phoenix and probably another major metro - and within 10 years most of the south we…

My guess is Tesla won't have anything resembling FSD to cover the entire US within 15 years. Though Musk and Tesla fans have shown that FSD is subjective, and they seem to think they already have it now, so I guarantee in 15 years they'll be arguing even louder...

If they change everything about their approach, and/or lease tech from Cruise or Waymo - then maybe they'll have something resembling FSD in large parts of the southwest. Predicting 5 years into the future is tough - 15 years is almost impossible.

Anyway, the pendulum seems to have swung the other way now. Since FSD is so far behind Elon the marketing-hype-stock-pump-Charlatan / the louder voice in the room - now the mainstream idea is - we're never going to have FSD.

This is ironic, since we basically already have it in a few large metros. It seems like the newspapers famously publishing that we might have manned space flight within 10,000,000 years - literally the day before the Wright brothers first flight...

People thought the car would never catch on, because cities were designed for people and bikes and horses. The car was so useful, we redesigned cities. Self-driving will be the same way. Once it takes off in some places and the value is realized, cities will redesign to make it work more broadly. It might take a long time, but it will happen...

Unless the nature of transit changes and individual vehicles are phased out for whatever reason first - though I don't see that happening without FSD busses / street cars.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#56

Post by ghaff »

dpiers wrote: post #34

FSD = fraudulent sales and disappointment I can’t believe Tesla has gotten away with selling a feature that doesn’t exist, and will never be delivered, on so many cars for so long. Tesla began selling “full self-driving” in October, 2016 and a month later marketed it with (now known to be heavily controlled) video of a car driving itself for two minutes. Owners of those initial cars have probably paid them off by now…

In fairness I know people with "FSD" who went into it well aware that it's not really FSD and they still like it. That said, the marketing is clearly fraudulent.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#57

Post by endisneigh »

ideamotor wrote: post #33
endisneigh wrote: post #16

Mainstream full self driving would just create massive traffic and gridlock - pointless in the end. The induced demand would outweigh the benefits. States are better off acknowledging that sprawling car dependent cities are not sustainable. High frequency busses in the interim with rail transit is the real solution. Current self driving technology plus some key infrastructure changes with dedicated bus lanes and prio…

The metric to judge assisted driving technologies is primarily safety. Driving is not safe and I suspect will appear insane to a future generation. Which generation and how soon is another question. However, what the US needs to massive investments in rail, which address both safety and traffic.

It's not that driving is unsafe, it's that cars are unsafe. Even if all cars were self driving, accidents happen, even with computers. A world without cars at all would be safer, albeit unrealistic. So the question is, would self driving put more or fewer cars on the road? I argue more. A lot more. So much more that it would offset the increase in marginal safety per vehicle.

It would also discourage the true solution around urbanization and continue to fuel more and more sprawling madness.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#58

Post by Retric »

ajross wrote: post #38
jaxn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any consumer car that is anywhere close? My understanding is that no other car has things like automatic lan change and route following. Let alone stopping at stop signs / red lights etc.

Yeah, nothing else does that stuff. Which is I think the big disconnect in this discourse. People who want to take the anti- side can lean on "It's not complete!" as an argument, because it isn't. But in terms of capability, it's way ahead of the competition[1] And some of us want this feature and want to pay for it! And it works! So... I'm actually fine with renaming it. People shouting "fraud" on the internet want…

Other driver assist/hands free driving systems do lane changing and still clarify they aren’t self driving.

The most important metric for self driving is the distance a car can travel before it needs assistance from an occupant. That’s what self driving is. Tesla is very far behind the leaders here.

Also, Tesla might not in theory be geofenced, but in practice it will refuse to drive on many roads making it effectively geofenced.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#59

Post by bushbaba »

alistairSH wrote: post #37
warning26 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re getting downvoted but you’re not necessarily wrong. I love the idea of self driving vehicles and I’m excited about them, but I harbor no illusions about them fixing traffic. The key question I would ask to self driving proponents is this - if you waved your magic wand and suddenly changed every car on the road to self driving…how would that impact traffic? At the very least traffic wouldn’t decrease . You coul…

Traffic would get somewhat worse. People would be willing to commute somewhat farther because they could spend that time reading the paper or working instead of driving the car. Errands that used to be annoying enough to delay get more frequent as well for the same reason. If we get to a car share model, where you subscribe and pay per mile, that might offset some car use. Really we need all of the above - self-drivi…

You could have a full self driving only lane that’s allows speeds up to 200MPH. Self driving cars could have better reaction times allowing for higher highway density with faster speeds.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#60

Post by spookie »

ajross wrote: post #8
api wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hard thing about FSD is related to the scale. It’s the long tail of situations it has to deal with, many of which require some kind of model or understanding of the world outside the car. It’s the worst sort of problem, one where 10% of the work gets you 90% of the way there and the other 90% of the work is needed to get you the other 10%. Problems like this are really bad for creating this mirage that you’ve alm…

I dinged you for this in a different comment too, but it's clearer here: you're doing exactly the conflation of "Full Self Driving" the product with "Full Autonomy" the concept that the linked law is trying to prevent ! The former has value and people will buy it even if the latter can't be delivered in totality. Making Tesla rename their product does not mean their cars magically stop driving themselves, and especia…

I'm sorry, but there's no other way to interpret "full self driving". It means, intuitively, that self driving has mastered all aspects of driving.

It doesn't leave space for interpretation in which only specific parts of driving are possible. At least in my mind.

Post reply on HN