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

461–470 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#461

Post by 2pEXgD0fZ5cF »

janalsncm wrote: post #442
rzimmerman wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also love my Model Y. It’s by far the best car I’ve ever owned or driven. But the software has stagnated in favor of “FSD” beta releases. Autopilot on freeways is great. I use it all the time and it works. I wish Tesla would focus on getting that to a level 3-type system - something where I can take my hands off the wheel and just be ready to take over after 10-15 seconds. It feels close enough that it could be don…

> Elon’s claim of “humans drive with eyes so a car can drive with cameras” is naive. Humans drive with our eyes and we’re pretty bad at driving. We should want systems with redundancy and using multiple modalities so that a car crash isn’t an accident, it’s a choice.

> we’re pretty bad at driving

Are we? I know it is a fashionable thing to say, but I am personally fascinated by the relatively low number of accidents given how omnipresent cars are.

For germany it's ~5 dead / 100000 motorized vehicles, and ~4 dead / 100000 inhabitants. [1]

More anecdotal: Growing up I lived near a pretty busy street and never personally witnessed an accident there.

Makes me think that we are actually pretty good at driving, even on average.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#462

Post by ghaff »

remote_phone wrote: post #453
misiti3780 wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im one of those people, I have it and love testing it out, but I know it's not FSD, I really do get the big deal about the name. Anyone who buys it thinking it's really FSD is an idiot. The difference between me and apparently everyone else in this forum is I do think TSLA will build a video model that is L4/L5 in the next few years. I live in a rural america and majority of my drives do not require interventions.

Musk said that by 2020 there would be a million robotaxis on the road. To say that anyone who bought it thinking that FSD wasn’t real is a very, very stupid statement.

Before I spend $10K+ on something, I do more research than listening to the claims of some CEO who has a history of being "optimistic" about timelines at a minimum.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#463

Post by logifail »

wpietri wrote: post #435
logifail wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the software has stagnated [..] I've only owned ICE vehicles (lifetime total: 3, 2 of which are parked outside right now), and have only ever rented ICE vehicles (lifetime total: several hundred, the latest of which is in the long-stay at London Heathrow right now...) I'm unable to get my head around talk of a vehicle's software "stagnating"? AFAIK none of the vehicles I've ever driven had OTA updates, and from…

I think the implication is that the current software is just not very good. It's obviously fine for techie early adopters, who like the new shiny and are willing to put up with a lot. But it sounds like from the perspective of a normal person's sustained daily use, the gee-whiz feelings wear off and leave you with annoying issues. But it could also partly be a case of differing expectations. The web has trained us al…

> on an ICE car when I'm confronted with, say, the same clunky dashboard nav system, it seems more frustrating that, year after year, it's still just as bad

I drove my first ICE vehicle for almost 10 years. The driver experience was exactly the same in year 9 as it was in year 1. The replacement is currently in year 7. It's the same as it was in its year 1.

Q: Why would that be frustrating?

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#464

Post by CamperBob2 »

twblalock wrote: post #454
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…

> Just think about it - what happens when everyone has a self driving car? All of those cars that are otherwise parked are now on the road. Why would that be the case? I would keep my self-driving car the same place I keep my normal car now. Why would it be driving around when I’m not in it? That would waste electricity. It would drive me somewhere, park, and wait — just like I do with my current car.

You might rent it out so that it's earning money for you when you're not using it. What the GP fails to understand is that if and when that happens, your car won't add to the traffic burden, it will replace another car that would otherwise be on the road.

Also, if we ever get our act together and make these things talk to each other and to the infrastructure, we will have effectively built trains that can operate without fixed rail. The upside is obviously considerable.

Bottom line is that FSD won't increase demand, but it has the potential to help us manage demand in ways that are completely unattainable with human drivers.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#465

Post by clouddrover »

simondotau wrote: post #455
clouddrover wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Additionally, Tesla's model right now is to have a driver in the seat. So then it's not full self-driving? I don't understand. Elon has been promising full self-driving for years: https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-promises-full-self-driving-ne... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cFTlx68itk

Uber predicted it was just a few years away in 2016.[1] Google's Sergey Brin predicted driverless cars by 2017.[2] BMW predicted we'd have driverless cars by 2020.[3] Supposedly sober industry analysts predicted 2019.[4] It's also worth pointing out that many of Elon's predictions were not predictions of a finished product, but rather predicting when Tesla would have a system "capable" of self driving, not necessaril…

Uh huh. And did they take money from customers with the promise of full self-driving being just around the corner? Did they take money from customers for a product making the specific claim that it has the "hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver":

https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now...

Musk will continue to lie about it because he thinks that without full self-driving Tesla is worth basically zero:

https://electrek.co/2022/06/15/elon-musk-solving-self-drivin...

Tesla has backed itself into this corner for no good reason, which is an irony considering that Teslas aren't good at backing themselves into anywhere else:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsb2XBAIWyA

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#466

Post by sjs7007 »

simondotau wrote: post #455
clouddrover wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Additionally, Tesla's model right now is to have a driver in the seat. So then it's not full self-driving? I don't understand. Elon has been promising full self-driving for years: https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-promises-full-self-driving-ne... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cFTlx68itk

Uber predicted it was just a few years away in 2016.[1] Google's Sergey Brin predicted driverless cars by 2017.[2] BMW predicted we'd have driverless cars by 2020.[3] Supposedly sober industry analysts predicted 2019.[4] It's also worth pointing out that many of Elon's predictions were not predictions of a finished product, but rather predicting when Tesla would have a system "capable" of self driving, not necessaril…

Claim two sounded a bit suspicious so I checked the quote:

" He promised, despite unhappy faces from his engineers, that it would take fewer years than he had fingers on his right hand before they were available to everyone – although the price wasn't mentioned."

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#467

Post by quonn »

clouddrover wrote: post #364
ra7 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FSD has enabled a ton of sales for Tesla and is arguably one of the biggest factors they were valued over a trillion dollars at one point.

The lies worked in the short term, but Tesla's on the hook now for a lot of free hardware upgrades: https://electrek.co/2022/12/12/tesla-ordered-upgrade-self-dr... That won't be helping the stock price going forward.

Those updates will be cheaper than the 15k price. And for those who already opted in, it‘s a small expense to pay for the upgrade. Tesla can easily afford it.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#468

Post by adrr »

wpietri wrote: post #425
dreamcompiler wrote: post #307

Should have happened sooner. I love my Model Y. It's the most fun car I've ever owned. It's also the most comfortable on long road trips and I can sleep in it in climate-controlled comfort without generating a gas that could kill me. I leave the house every morning with a full tank and never have to stop at a gas station. And my cost per mile is 1/4 what it was with an ICE car. I just wish Tesla would focus on this s…

> I just wish Tesla would focus on this stuff without hyping an AI feature that can never happen. There's a good argument that Tesla wouldn't exist today without the hype. The enormous positive public image mad Tesla's cost of capital extremely low, and ditto its cost of marketing. Tesla needed a lot of both to get to break-even. Musk himself has talked repeatedly about coming close to bankruptcy. It's reasonable to…

Fake it to you make it. FSD will never come on the current hardware.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#469

Post by cycomanic »

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #403
shawnz wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're just a passenger then why does it matter to you whether the taxi service is self-driving or not? Surely the benefits of self-driving would be significantly more relevant for those who do want to own the vehicle?

Average earnings (after expenses) of a ride share driver is very roughly $10/hour. If you assume a self-driving car can get 2000 hours of use a year (which seems reasonably conservative), then the self-driving car saves $20k in labor costs per year. Although self-driving tech will be expensive in the beginning, the price will likely at some point decline to be far below $20k/year. Labor is about half of the cost of a…

But price is said due to supply and demand not the cost of providing the service. So why do you think taxi fares will go down?

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#470

Post by simondotau »

sjs7007 wrote: post #466
simondotau wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber predicted it was just a few years away in 2016.[1] Google's Sergey Brin predicted driverless cars by 2017.[2] BMW predicted we'd have driverless cars by 2020.[3] Supposedly sober industry analysts predicted 2019.[4] It's also worth pointing out that many of Elon's predictions were not predictions of a finished product, but rather predicting when Tesla would have a system "capable" of self driving, not necessaril…

Claim two sounded a bit suspicious so I checked the quote: " He promised, despite unhappy faces from his engineers, that it would take fewer years than he had fingers on his right hand before they were available to everyone – although the price wasn't mentioned."

Indeed. In fact if one were to be pedantic, he said fewer than five, so his prediction was really for 2016, not 2017.
Post reply on HN