171–180 of 286 posts
To be honest I think the true story here is: > the fleet has traveled approximately 500,000 miles Let's say they average 10mph, and say they operate 10 hours a day, that's 5,000 car-days of travel, or to put it another way about 30 cars over 6 months. That's tiny! That's a robotaxi company that is literally smaller than a lot of taxi companies. One crash in this context is going to just completely blow out their stat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it is fraud trying to inflate Tesla stock price.
The real term is “marketing puffery.” It’s a fun, legally specific way to describe a company bullshitting to hype its product.
To be honest I think the true story here is: > the fleet has traveled approximately 500,000 miles Let's say they average 10mph, and say they operate 10 hours a day, that's 5,000 car-days of travel, or to put it another way about 30 cars over 6 months. That's tiny! That's a robotaxi company that is literally smaller than a lot of taxi companies. One crash in this context is going to just completely blow out their stat…
Currently it's at 58 unique vehicles (based on license plates) with about 22 that haven't been seen in over a month
TBH, the comments here amaze me. The claim is that a human being paid to monitor a driver assistance feature is 3x more likely to crash than a human alone. That needs extraordinary evidence. Instead the evidence is misleading guesses.
A safety system with blurry performance boundaries is called "a massive risk." That's why responsible system designers first define their ODD, then design their system to perform to a pre-specified standard within that ODD.
Tesla's technology is "works mostly pretty well in many but not all scenarios and we can't tell you which is which"
It is not an extraordinary claim at all that such a system could yield worse outcomes than a human with no asssistance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure how defensible the lead was. The only reason BYD isn't the only game in town is tariffs. The pivot to Optimus is ridiculous though. They can't get a car to drive truly autonomously after more than a decade and they want to expand the degrees of freedom?
I'm glad Tesla is pivoting to a product that can drop your bag of groceries in the worst case, instead of one that can slam you into a concrete divider at 75mph.
Yes on one side Tesla is not transparent but on the other side the author of the article is an hypocrite given they went with the click-bait title "Tesla’s own Robotaxi data confirms crash rate 3x worse than humans even with monitor" Tesla secrecy is likely due to avoid journalists taking any chance they can to sell more news by writing an autonomous vehicles horror story. Given the secrecy we don't know what happene…
Secrecy clearly doesn't avoid that kind of story though. The question is if their numbers were really good, or at least as good as Waymo, why wouldn't they share them for the positive press? Waymo doesn't get as many negative pieces like this. It's a pretty logical conclusion to say that numbers they won't share must make them look bad in some way.
Elon Musk is a divisive figure.
Most of us are very well aware of Tesla's shortcomings with FSD and inflated valuations. But electrek's reporting is biased and in bad faith when it comes to Tesla/Musk.
https://www.iseecars.com/most-dangerous-cars-study#:~:text=T...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's fair to put the burden of proof here on Tesla. They should convince people that their Robotaxis are safe. If they redact the details about all incidents so that you cannot figure out who's at fault, that's on Tesla alone.
>I think it's fair to put the burden of proof here on Tesla. That just sounds like a cope. The OP's claim is that the article rests on shaky evidence, and you haven't really refuted that. Instead, you just retreated from the bailey of "Tesla's Robotaxi data confirms crash rate 3x worse ..." to the motte of "the burden of proof here on Tesla". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy More broadly I think…
They're saying that Tesla should be held to a very high standard of transparency if they are to be trusted. I can't speak to OP, but I'd argue this should apply to any company with aspirations toward autonomous driving vehicles.
The title might be misleading if you don't read the article, but the article itself at some level is about how Tesla is not being as transparent as other companies. The "shaky evidence" is due to Tesla's own lack of transparency, which is the point of stating that the burden of proof should be on Tesla. The article is about how, even with lack of transparency, the data doesn't look good, raising the question of what else they might not be disclosing.
From the article: "Perhaps more troubling than the crash rate is Tesla’s complete lack of transparency about what happened... If Tesla wants to be taken seriously as a robotaxi operator, it needs to do two things: dramatically improve its safety record, and start being honest about what’s happening..."
I'd argue the central thesis of the article isn't one of statistical estimation; it's a statement about evidentiary burden.
You don't have to agree with the position that Tesla should be held a high transparency standard. But the article is taking the position that you should, and that if you do agree with that position, that you might say that even by Tesla's unacceptable standards they are failing. They're essentially (if implicitly) challenging Tesla to provide more data to refute the conclusions, saying "prove us wrong", knowing that if they do, then at least Tesla would be improving transparency.