California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD • Hacker News Board

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#541

Post by SapporoChris » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:40 PM UTC

ra7 wrote: post #194

ghaff wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

This has always confused me. I knew FSD wasn't feasible, I knew Tesla was selling a lie. I also knew it was an incredible investment opportunity. I passed on it because I envisioned a bunch of lawsuits destroying the company.

Obviously, I was clearly wrong. While the stock is way down from peak it's clearly been an amazing investment for those that invested early. 2020/1/10 $31.88, 2021/11/30 $381.59 (peak I think) and around 122.81 at close Friday.

Normally, I can look back at an investment in mistake and the issues are obvious in hindsight. With Tesla, I still have no idea why the company still hasn't succumb to lawsuits.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#542

Post by threeseed » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:44 PM UTC

jiggawatts wrote: post #529

gaius_baltar wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Elon’s claim of “humans drive with eyes so a car can drive with cameras” is naive. Specially because we don't drive with eyes only, we use at least our ears too for hearing unusual noises and the balance sense for detecting vibrations, changes on road surface, and to get feedback about orientation changes.

Teslas have those sensors, but don’t currently use some of them (like microphones) as inputs. Unlike human drivers, a Tesla autopilot can track the rotation of each wheel independently and in real time.

> a Tesla autopilot can track the rotation of each wheel independently

But most humans can in most cases feel when there is a loss of traction on the road. Although agreed it comes nothing close to what the car knows.

That said I am not sure that this is a core feature needed to make FSD work.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#543

Post by iandanforth » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:44 PM UTC

What a windfall for Tesla! They get to walk back their absurd claims while pinning the blame on someone else. They're still probably going to face massive lawsuits when they fail to ever deliver full self driving, but this might at least limit the size of the class.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#544

Post by FatActor » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:45 PM UTC

93po wrote: post #371

paulmendoza wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t tell if you are joking or not

He isn't. It's Elon derangement syndrome.

The idea of describing an opposing view as derangement is disingenuous because it implies you know the mental state of the person, and it also completely avoids having to discuss the merit of the argument by derailing it. It is also questionable because your post history is full of dozens of pro-Tesla/Elon posts which are mostly trolls or memes. That makes me wonder what you mean by "derangement" because I consider doing that on a discussion forum that seeks knowledge as antithetical to its existence. But since people aware of news coverage for the past decade, this is a term that was popularized in the US during the 2016 election cycle, it has been used to shut down any rational debate. It is effectively name calling. Which is the opposite of the purpose of HN and makes me wonder why you are even here. To troll or to learn or to help people learn. Again from your history, it seems to be the first option.

Whether or not someone took donations from an opposing industry, and using that to dismiss their argument is one of the classic fallacies of reasoning.

To me, naming a deadly product something it is not seems worthy of regulation, because it is lying. If you prima facie consider me deranged because of that, I do not understand your world view and would like to understand it better.

Also, I'm not a he.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#545

Post by jdminhbg » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:46 PM UTC

xattt wrote: post #355

93po wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The title of this is "Full Self Driving Hardware on All Teslas". The hardware is in fact on all Teslas. What part of that is fraud? Nothing about this video was misleading and the car did in fact drive itself through that route.

The name FSD intimates an SAE Level 5 experience. It’s not partial self-driving or any other sort, but full . If there was any name to suggest it, this would be it. Imagine going to an emergency department with chest pains/trouble breathing/thunderclap headache, and the triage nurse saying “oooooh yeaaaaah, I know emergency is in our name but we don’t really deal with that , you’re on your own”. Things that are criti…

You know there are lots of ERs that can’t handle lots of emergencies, right? There’s even a whole “Level” system to describe which emergencies they are and are not equipped to handle.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#546

Post by KyeRussell » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:46 PM UTC

rzimmerman wrote: post #323

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 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…

With the amount of theorising and handwringing people do wrt Elon’s motives or reasons for having this view of FSD, there seems to be a lot of people that don’t want to acknowledge him for the boring stereotype that he is: a manager / salesperson completely out of his depth making wild unsubstantiated claims. It’s just that the autocratic role he demands within organisations, and his relatively newfound publicity fuelled by his legion of fetishists, means that we all hear about it.

I only vaguely (for a developer) know about AI / computer vision, yet I’m still made deeply anxious by the implication that we will somehow in the foreseeable future be able to pull this off at ALL, let alone with 1.5 hands tied behind our backs as Tesla insists.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#547

Post by misiti3780 » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:47 PM UTC

bagels wrote: post #473

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.

Why are they idiots? Because they believed the marketing messages that Tesla put out?

pretty much yes. If you live in 2022 and believe any marketing, you're not firing on all cylinders.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#548

Post by threeseed » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:47 PM UTC

simondotau wrote: post #436

BoorishBears wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arbitrary limitations on the sensor suite because "we figured it out, humans only need cameras" are one reason. Tesla is not running in the same race as actual AV companies.

All of the "actual AV companies" have only released curated marketing videos and/or restrict operation to curated geofenced areas. Meanwhile we've seen exactly one company's autonomy technology exposed to unsupervised and uncontrolled adversarial conditions across hundreds of wildly diverse cities in the USA. Whether you are impressed with their state of progress or not, there's nobody you can compare them to. Operat…

> All of the "actual AV companies" .. restrict operation to curated geofenced areas

That's because they aren't being reckless and releasing a dangerous product onto the road that they know has issues. Unlike Tesla.

And those geofenced areas are at least with Cruise almost entire cities.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#549

Post by HDThoreaun » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:48 PM UTC

ziml77 wrote: post #530

wpietri wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But self driving cars will do nothing to reduce traffic. I think self-driving cars could (and probably will) net worsen the traffic problem, but the above is not necessarily correct. If we ever get them working properly, self-driving cars can collaborate in ways that humans can't. E.g., imagine a busy freeway. In theory, cars going similar ways could form a sort of peoloton, communicating with one another about int…

The problem is that every vehicle participating in that network would have to be owned and operated by a trusted entity. Otherwise it would be too easy for someone to modify the software or tamper with the hardware in ways that cause information to be misreported and cause a mess.

And then the person who owns that car gets charged with murder when it crashes on the highway

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#550

Post by asveikau » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:48 PM UTC

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #405

rntp wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hold up hold up hold up. So there was a recent article (in Slate, I believe?) by someone who had driven for Lyft ten years ago and who did it a little bit this year just to see how it changed. They said that the chief thing was that Lyft's take was significantly larger than it used to be, about 40% of the total fares collected. Which, like, you're looking at that and it seems reasonable, right? Let's step into our ti…

The biggest difference between Lyft/Uber and dispatch taxis isn’t the automation it’s the customer service! Previously customer service was non-existent. If a taxi didn’t show up, we just got screwed. There wasn’t even anyone to call for the issue. On the apps I instantly get a credit to help ease the burden and the driver has their rating reduced. For many reasons customer service is very expensive and it’s not yet…

> There wasn’t even anyone to call for the issue

You could call the dispatcher, who was physically local to you. Today's apps, maybe you get some ZenDesk type thing, or in-app chat to some large, faceless corporation, and my admittedly limited experience is these things tend to be very dismissive of customers, viewing support mainly as cost and trying to get rid of customers rather than addressing issues.