this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
830 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59627 readers
3423 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Except he claimed Tesla had the technology working NOW in 2019. Which is a factually false statement not about beliefs.
And that would is probably one of the indicators of why lawsuit is allowed to proceed and might be won in the end.
Yeah. He explicitly stated that the only thing stopping them flipping the switch were those damn pesky road laws
Which I'm sure was true. It would certainly be a lot faster to debug FSD after a number of deaths for each bug.
depends how you define "working" i suppose.
can a tesla drive its full range automomously? probably...
should it? probably not
Musk defined it himself, as the car being able to drive autonomously from a parking lot across the country to pick you up in another parking lot.
and they could do that in theory, just not very safely
In theory is not the same as actually being able to do it, which was what he clearly claimed saying: And we can do that NOW.
Its only not possible on consumer models because of restrictions put in place by tesla.
As evidenced by Elon mode
A tesla can drive its self, but it doesnt because of regulatory/safety/liability reasons
No it was not, we have testimony from employees that FSD wasn't even close to what Musk claimed. And it can't even do it today.
Just because you can flip a switch that says FSD doesn't mean it works.
Again, we're arguing about the definition of "working" which was my original point.
Can it self drive? yes
Should it? no
That argument is stupid. My robot lawn mower "can drive itself" but it can't follow traffic rules and would crash after a while if set to drive on its own in a road. Just as a Tesla. What Musk was implying was "it can drive itself without violating traffic rules and causing crashes" and clearly it can't.
I think FSD is further along than you think it is.
certainly a lot further than the kind of "self driving" present in your standard robotic lawn mower
Well yes, but the end result after driving unattended in traffic for a while is the same still, that's the point. You could argue that a FSD Tesla makes it a bit further, I guess that's true but still it's far from what Elon was selling to the people.
This is the issue with all these debates currently. The people arguing against FSD are totally unaware of how far it has come since just a few months ago. They have already made up their minds based on how much it sucked a year ago and they're under the illusion that it's at best just marginally better today. I love watching the YouTube channel CYBRLFT and seeing people's minds getting blown in real time when they realize that what they've heard on the news and on social media is so far from the reality.
Is it perfect? No. Is it unbelieveably good? Yes.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
CYBRLFT
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
That's like saying a car with cruise control can self drive. Although FSD is more sophisticated, it still can't.
The Tesla cannot self drive by any reasonable meaning of the term.
Tesla also calls it assisted self driving now. And that's obviously not because it works now, which even now 8 years later it doesn't.
Are you debating just to debate, or do you just fail to see the obvious issue?
It can do that now. Probably not with zero driver interventions especially when talking about a trip across the country but Tesla is the only vehicle manufacturer today that offers this capability. There's a dude on YouTube doing ridesharing with Tesla using FSD and with the latest software version it completes 90% of the trips from the pickup to the destination without intervention from the driver.
OK? Doubts.
Oh so it can't?!
Musk also said more safely than a human being. I've seen videos with FSD creating numerous dangerous situations on a single trip, that required quick intervention to avoid collisions. Driving in narrow roads it would suddenly turn into opposite traffic (potentially lethal), not minding right of way in crosses (also potentially lethal), and even turning straight towards parked cars, when the lane it was in was unobstructed!!
Another video I saw, it crossed at a very clear red light!! That's a very potentially lethal situation.
There is no way it can be reasonably argued that Tesla has working full self driving.
You know 90% isn't even close to being half finished. The next 9% are probably more difficult, and the last percent the most difficult. There's a reason the hard parts are finished last.
I don't see anyone claiming they have "working full self driving". That's a strawman argument. Their system is really good and years ahead of competition but there's still a shit ton to improve. That's why it's classified as level 2 and not level 3. It's a vehicle capable of driving itself under supervision but it's not a self driving vehicle.
In the past few months? Because the current software version is completely different than what it used to be. They've moved entirely from human code to neural nets and it made a giant improvement in its performance.
The whole thread is about Musk claiming in 2019 that Tesla has FSD working NOW, that could drive the car from a parking lot on the other side of the country (USA) and pick you up in a parking lot where you are. AND that it could drive more safely than a human being.
I am not interested in the slightest whether it's 50% or 90% there now, the fact is the claim was made first in 2016, that Tesla would have it ready NEXT YEAR, and in 2019 he claimed it was ready NOW! And it's STILL not ready!!
So what is it about Musks claims being false you don't understand?
That's decidedly false, because you yourself wrote:
From the article:
So not only are you clearly emotionally invested here but you're also being dishonest about the claims that have been made. I don't think there's any reason to go further with this.
Oh boy you are tiresome, I wrote the thread, not the post.
But still the context of "the coming year" Musk claimed Tesla had that NOW in 2019, and it would be made available to consumers in the coming year being 2020. It's from the exact same presentation.
Nothing you quote contradicts anything I wrote. It's just different parts of the same thing, which of course requires background knowledge you evidently don't have.
... They're literally calling it "Full self driving".
..and I don't see anyone claiming it to be "working" as in it being safe enough to not need supervision.
Wait, so in your mind products need to have "working" in their name in order to be held to the standard of ... working? I don't understand what you're trying to argue at all. They're calling and selling this product as "full self driving". It's not full self driving. It doesn't need to be called "working full self driving" in order for it to be misleading.
No, the other user is claiming that they don't have a "working" full self driving but is being vague about what they mean by "working".
Full Self Driving is just the name of the software. There's also autopilot but that's different. The end goal of it is to eventually be capable of level 5 self driving so that's why it's named like that even though it has been a work in progress all of it's existence. Wouldn't make much sense to call it "partial self driving under supervision" because Full Self Driving is a better marketing term. Misleading? Well yeah perhaps but that's what marketing teams do. Nothing new there. Not a single Tesla owner is under the illusion that you can just enable the system and take a nap. Doesn't mean people don't do that but they know that they shouldn't. The system tells you that every single time you enable it.
Personally I don't see a huge issue with that name. It's level 2 meaning that it needs driver supervision and it's by no means flawless but it does what the name implies: drives itself. It's not just an advanced cruise control like for example the Mercedes Drive Pilot but it is actually capable of independently driving itself and especially with the V12 it's actually getting quite good at it.
I don't think the other commenter is being is vague at all. "Full self driving" quite literally means Level 5, maybe level 4. That's just what those words mean. There's no argument here.
Yes, which is the problem.
Which is exactly why calling it "full self driving" now doesn't make any sense. It's false advertising at best, and a super dangerous overpromise at worst.
Of course it's a "better marketing term", because "full self driving" is the pinnacle of self driving tech, what Tesla and everyone else in the race is trying to achieve. The problem is that what they have is not full self driving, and in fact whether it can ever be achieved with current Tesla hardware is far from proven. I'm not confused as to why they call it that, I'm arguing the point that they shouldn't call it that.
Not at all. This is not typically what marketing teams do at all. It's pretty damn unusual for a major corporation to sell a product under the technical term for what it may be at some point. Or do you have any other examples of this?
Maybe not, but do you really think no-one bought a Tesla based on Elon's promise that it'd be fully self driving by 2019? Or that you could monetize it by having it run as a robotaxi at night by 2020?
Tesla and Musk not constantly overpromising and misrepresenting their product with false confidence might help with preventing people from placing undue trust in the system.
As you say, it's level 2. "Full self driving" is level 5. You still don't see the problem with the name?
It quite literally does not drive itself given that a driver needs to be around and alert to take over at any moment.
I'll grant you that the name is misleading. They should change it. It's also plausible that there's some number of customers for which the false marketing claims may have been the deciding factor in their purchase decision.
Is there something else you feel I'm confused about?
"Their system is really good and years ahead of competition but there’s still a shit ton to improve"
Is it years ahead of the competition? I thought the consensus was that Tesla is far behind, hence why Mercedes is the first brand to actually have some basic level 3 automomus driving actually to customers, and companies other than tesla are actually doing tests with robo taxis. Tesla is good at claiming it can do the above, other companies are the ones actually doing it.
And indeed, there's a shit ton to improve, which directly contradicts statements Elon Musk made, and keeps making. As others already pointed out, calling it Full Self Driving while letting it do that is basically suicide is just the beginning. Elon Musk regularly repeating that it's there, it works etc... only to leave customers waiting for nearly 8 years now with a system that is not what Elon described, etc...
Self driving is really hard, Tesla made some good progress on it, but Elon continuously lying about it should indeed get legal consequences. I'm hope this lawsuit teaches him to actually talk about things he actually knows are true, and not just what he wishes was true.
Yeah that seems to be the consensus but I have no idea what it's based on. When the Mercedes system is put against FSD it looks like this. The level 3 driving is available only on a handful of highways between LA, SF and LV and even then only in ideal weather and traffic conditions.
If the competition really is ahead then where are all the videos of their vehicles doing what FSD does? There are countless accounts on YouTube demonstrating the capabilities of FSD driving both on highways and in cities but nothing about these other brands.
It's obviously based on other makers being ahead.
Mercedes, Waymo, GM, MobilEye, Nvidia are all ahead, making Tesla #6 at best.
Are you misleading on purpose? Or are you really that dense?
https://www.mbusa.com/en/owners/manuals/drive-pilot
Mercedes Calls their version of fully autonomous driving: Drive Pilot but you show a comparison to a way more basic Driving Assistant, which is nowhere close!
This comparison shows that Tesla FSD in reality is merely a drive assist.
Stated clearly in the very next sentence.
Always has been. That video compares drive assist to another. Apples to apples comparison. What exactly is the issue here?
Mercedes: Requirements to be used Legally.
Tesla: Not Legal unverified results.
Why don't you ask the experts that rather than a random lemming like me? And why don't you ask Elon why he keeps claiming it's capable of more than it actually is?
I honestly don't care enough about it to do research, but you seem to. And i'd just love for guys like Elon to stop lying about what they have.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
this
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
dude on YouTube
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Forget Tesla dude! Trust me I'm from the year 2024. In just a few months your world will change drastically and everyone will start getting 😷 sick and wearing a mask. We called it COVID 19 and it was bad. Real bad. The only way to fight this pandemic was to isolate as much as possible until a vaccine was made available. The markets never crashed like Trump suggested.... almost as if he knew something was happening....you must invest all your money on moderna and Pfizer vaccine related stocks. Anyway, that's all I remember. Paxlovid was okay but not a vaccine. Wow, Lemmy let's you time travel! We need to invest into this technology!