Yes and in 2019 Musk's claims went even further, when he claimed it was stupid to buy anything but Tesla, because next year (2020) You would be able to make money on it as a RoboTaxi. As I recall it was $200,000.- you should be able to make on a Tesla per year!!! Why he sold them then is a bit strange?
He also claimed that instead of losing value, a Tesla would increase as much as five times in value in a year, because FSD was worth that much.
How this man hasn't been jailed for fraud years ago is beyond me, I could understand if USA was a corrupt country for the rich...
oh... Never mind.
I think he truly believed all that. He did not lie, he was wrong about the future. Or at least that would be his legal defense.
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.
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 š· 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!
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.
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
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.
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.
It can do that now.
OK? Doubts.
Probably not with zero driver interventions
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.
it completes 90% of the trips
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.
Iāve seen videos with FSD creating numerous dangerous situations on a single trip
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.
I donāt see anyone claiming they have āworking full self drivingā
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?
I donāt see anyone claiming they have āworking full self drivingā.
That's decidedly false, because you yourself wrote:
It can do that now.
The whole thread is about Musk claiming in 2019 that Tesla has FSD working NOW
From the article:
(1) representations that Tesla vehicles have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability and, (2) representations that a Tesla car would be able to drive itself cross-country in the coming year.
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.
"Their system is really good and years ahead of competition but thereās 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.
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
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.
I have no idea what itās based on.
It's obviously based on other makers being ahead.
Mercedes, Waymo, GM, MobilEye, Nvidia are all ahead, making Tesla #6 at best.
When the Mercedes system is put against FSD it looks like this.
Are you misleading on purpose? Or are you really that dense?
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.
Are you misleading on purpose?
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.
Stated clearly in the very next sentence.
This comparison shows that Tesla FSD in reality is merely a drive assist.
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.
I don't see anyone claiming they have "working full self driving"
... 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.
There are plenty of bosses like him out there. Completely high on their own shit. He reads about technology in a sci-fi book, and thinks he can Steve Jobs into bullying workers into making it a reality. Completely deludes himself into thinking itās real and sells it to investors with full confidence. He has no idea of the actual technical challenges and fully convinces himself his genius brain could figure it out if he wasnāt so ābusyā all the time. Everything is perpetually just 6 months away.
The worst part is that he doesn't even understand the sci-fi he consumes. He said this not too long ago:
Grok is an AI modeled after The Hitchhikerās Guide to the Galaxy, so intended to answer almost anything and, far harder, even suggest what questions to ask!
Every AI in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was broken, an asshole or both. Douglas Adams clearly thought the idea of a "human-like" AI was abhorrent. Especially one developed by a giant corporation.
Also, he thinks the name of the main character in Blade Runner is "Bladerunner."
And the word grok comes from stranger in a strange land, not hitchhikers guide.
True, and since part of the meaning of grok in the book was 'to love,' naming your "anti-woke" AI after that suggests he also didn't understand that book.
Every AI in the Hitchhikerās Guide to the Galaxy was broken,
Wow, I'm a huge fan of Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, and I never really thought of that, but you are 100% right.
Wonderful comment thanks. š š
I don't think he meant an AI from the book, I think he meant the actual Hitchhiker's Guide. The one that says don't panic on the cover
Which, again, was incredibly corrupt and run by a soulless corporation that didn't actually care about the truth.
Funny how rich people can get away with that. I could say I fully believe Iām going to win $50 million in the lottery next week, buy a bunch of shit I canāt pay for, and probably wind up jailed pretty shortly thereafter and nobody would bat an eye. Rich guy selling vaporware? No problem, he just believed his own hype train. Sorry, investors.
He's claimed before that he honestly believes it each year by watching the progress the past X months, but suddenly all progress stops as their method hits a plateau. So they keep changing methods.
It's probably an honest mistake the first time or two, but he's done this every year since and has no credibility anymore.
After being wrong by a year or two, he should have explained what was going in, and shut up about it, with a simple I don't know when it'll be ready but you should see forward progress each year.
He is a smart guy and an idiot at the same time. I donāt know how it fits in the same person. He is not neurotypical.
He's not smart he is just in the elite club where he fails upwards, his name will be cemented beside DJ Khaled for most successful failure
get born rich
fail like a bitch
That's Elon
aww, he's a smidiot. That's idiartic, Elon! ;)
I really believed that...
Uh-huh... There is a long, LONG list of bullshit that he believed, and continues to believe. There comes a point where we either have to accept that he has the mental level of a 5 year old believing in Santa Claus, or that he is a narcissistic compulsive liar.
Why, he might have to pay a fine of a full hour's worth of profits that resulted from his actions!?
He's a military contractor.
Yes with Starlink which the military threatened they might nationalize if Musk sabotaged Ukraine access again.
I honestly don't think Musk's value as a military contractor is very high, and probably (hopefully) not enough to protect him from criminal liability.
Elon Musk says he withheld Starlink over Crimea to avoid escalation
So why don't you just butt off with your bullshit already? You are hereby reported.
Jesus christ dude. There's quote from the author himself, Walter Isaacson who is the person from whose book the whole claim originated from.
To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it, because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a major war.
You believe him when the narrative suits you but you don't when it doesn't. Talk about cognitive dissonance lol
Enabling Starlink in Crimea would have been against the sanctions to Russia by the US. Literally illegal.
But LoSavio had opted out of the arbitration agreement and was given the option of filing an amended complaint.
This is why itās important to opt out of arbitration!
Also notice the potential for fuckery in the statute of limitations here:
the relevant statutes of limitations range from two to four years, and LoSavio sued over five years after buying the car. Under the delayed discovery rule, the limitations period begins when "the plaintiff has, or should have, inquiry notice of the cause of action."
But when Tesla declined to update his car's cameras in April 2022, "LoSavio allegedly discovered that he had been misled by Tesla's claim that his car had all the hardware needed for full automation."
Without that specific moment to point to, to reset the clock through delayed discovery, Tesla could just say āYeah, we lied, but you bought the lie for 5 years, so now weāre in the clear!ā
Fuck the Musk and his inflated ego.
The part of the claim here where they wouldn't upgrade the cameras is a part that I'm highly interested in.
I don't expect tesla to upgrade any hardware beyond what they believe is required which they claim hardware 3 is.
But the moment a hardware 3 car can't flip a switch and become level 3/4 SAE autonomous and a hardware 4, 5, 6 or whatever it is if/when solved is required, I think there's a massive lawsuit there unless Tesla somehow upgrades the cars.
Suddenly the car didn't come with the hardware required and can't function as described, especially back when it was announced.
Tesla will say, oh we'll get it working on HW3 next year... and try to kick the can to avoid liability, but I don't think that will work long.
Edit: and as per the ruling, it sounds like the new knowledge that the car can't on HW3 but can on others, would trigger new knowledge opening up past the statute of limitations
Finally?
Sorry Tesla but every captcha about bicycles and street lights was just too good an opportunity to be bad! LOL ... bicycle! š² Nah! That's just š£ļø road! Continue!
That's not how FSD works. It's a neural net trained on millions of hours of video content of good human driving. Nowhere in the code is even specified what a bicycle is.
You train neuronal networks with labeled data and those captchas are used to create the labels. Its not specified in the code what a bicycle is, but in the training data.
Is that why it runs stop signs?
It was millions of hours of BMW owners driving.
Hahahahah fuck Elonās fraudster ass
Not for all the money in the world could you convince me to touch him, let alone what you propose.
Eh, I'd give him a poke.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A federal judge ruled yesterday that Tesla must face a lawsuit alleging that it committed fraud by misrepresenting the self-driving capabilities of its vehicles.
LoSavio points to a Tesla statement in October 2016 that all its cars going forward would have the "hardware needed for full self-driving capability," and a November 2016 email newsletter stating that "all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory now have full self-driving hardware."
According to the SAC [Second Amended Complaint], Tesla's cars have thus stalled at SAE Level 2 ("Partial Driving Automation"), which requires "the human driver's constant supervision, responsibility, and control."
Even if Tesla meant to convey that its hardware could reach Level 2 only, the SAC still sufficiently alleges that those representations reasonably misled LoSavio.
The complaint also "sufficiently alleges that Musk falsely represented the vehicle's future ability to self-drive cross-country and that LoSavio relied upon these representations pre-purchase," Lin concluded.
Musk claimed at an October 2016 news conference that a Tesla car would be able to drive from Los Angeles to New York City "by the end of next year without the need for a single touch."
The original article contains 509 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Ironically this comes at a time when FSD is getting so good that the car does indeed practically drive itself. It's still level 2 but the amount of driver interventions reguired to reach your destination has dropped to near zero. I don't think we're very far at all from an actual robotaxi and the ability to use your personal vehicle as such.
Meanwhile Mercedes has already reached level 3.
The link you didn't open has a video comparing Tesla and Mercedes driving the exact same route on autopilot.
Still ignoring the fact that this technology was advertised to arrive by 2017. Itās seven years overdue.
Thatās false advertising.
Itās seven years overdue so far.
FIFY.
I don't know what this has to do with what I said. It's long overdue, yes. It was false advertising, yes. It's incredibly good nowdays, yes. Several things can be true at the same time.
Forgive the imperfect analogy, but if my wife left me because I wan an alcoholic, and I came back seven years later saying āIām sober now!ā, you think sheās going to take me back or have moved on with her fucking life?
Yeah I have no idea what you're trying to tell me. You're not going to buy a Tesla because they lied about FSD a decade earlier? Ok. Good for you?
As I explained somebody else the other day, software development follows a 90/10 rule in that 90% of the work that needs doing is in the last 10% of the result and these guys have been stuck for years at the "almost there" stage.
It's perfectly possible to hack your way for the first easy 90% of the result but that software development "method" won't get you up to the 99.999% levels of reliability (or whatever number of nines the regulations demand) needed for a FSD system to be certified as autonomous.
So no amount of people showing full self drive working without problems sometimes or even most of the time (or as you say, "practically") will show that Testla has the capability of doing the last 10% (which, remember, is most of the work), whilst them having been stuck at pretty much the current level for years is a good indication that they're probably stuck down a dead-end that will never lead to something that can achieve the necessary reliability to be certified as an autonomous system.
Also, in my professional opinion as a very senior software engineer, looking from the outside and judging by many software and UI design choices in their vehicles, they're unlikelly to actually be competent enough to pull it off and seem to be following a Tech Startup model (and I can tell you from experience in that Industry and others, that Startups are usually amateur hour, every hour of the day, every day of the week, every week of the year compared to all of the rest) hence me mentioning above the possibility that they've might have "hacked" (i.e. mainly gone at it by trial and error) their way up the first 90%.
Can't wait to take a real life Johnnycab.
Exactly the same price as a normal taxi (if not higher, because there's no competition left), but now all the money goes to needy Silicon Valley trillionaires, rather than some greedy low life taxi driver who just wants to waste that money on food and rent, rather than lovely sustaining growth.
That taxi might just aswell belong to a a private individual who instead of leaving their car at the company parking lot for the whole day sent it doing ridesharing.
Yes and in 2019 Musk's claims went even further, when he claimed it was stupid to buy anything but Tesla, because next year (2020) You would be able to make money on it as a RoboTaxi. As I recall it was $200,000.- you should be able to make on a Tesla per year!!! Why he sold them then is a bit strange?
He also claimed that instead of losing value, a Tesla would increase as much as five times in value in a year, because FSD was worth that much.
How this man hasn't been jailed for fraud years ago is beyond me, I could understand if USA was a corrupt country for the rich...
oh... Never mind.
I think he truly believed all that. He did not lie, he was wrong about the future. Or at least that would be his legal defense.
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.
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 š· 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!
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
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.
"Their system is really good and years ahead of competition but thereās 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.
... 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.
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.
There are plenty of bosses like him out there. Completely high on their own shit. He reads about technology in a sci-fi book, and thinks he can Steve Jobs into bullying workers into making it a reality. Completely deludes himself into thinking itās real and sells it to investors with full confidence. He has no idea of the actual technical challenges and fully convinces himself his genius brain could figure it out if he wasnāt so ābusyā all the time. Everything is perpetually just 6 months away.
The worst part is that he doesn't even understand the sci-fi he consumes. He said this not too long ago:
Every AI in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was broken, an asshole or both. Douglas Adams clearly thought the idea of a "human-like" AI was abhorrent. Especially one developed by a giant corporation.
Also, he thinks the name of the main character in Blade Runner is "Bladerunner."
https://futurism.com/the-byte/elon-musk-main-character-blade-runner
And the word grok comes from stranger in a strange land, not hitchhikers guide.
True, and since part of the meaning of grok in the book was 'to love,' naming your "anti-woke" AI after that suggests he also didn't understand that book.
Wow, I'm a huge fan of Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, and I never really thought of that, but you are 100% right.
Wonderful comment thanks. š š
I don't think he meant an AI from the book, I think he meant the actual Hitchhiker's Guide. The one that says don't panic on the cover
Which, again, was incredibly corrupt and run by a soulless corporation that didn't actually care about the truth.
Funny how rich people can get away with that. I could say I fully believe Iām going to win $50 million in the lottery next week, buy a bunch of shit I canāt pay for, and probably wind up jailed pretty shortly thereafter and nobody would bat an eye. Rich guy selling vaporware? No problem, he just believed his own hype train. Sorry, investors.
He's claimed before that he honestly believes it each year by watching the progress the past X months, but suddenly all progress stops as their method hits a plateau. So they keep changing methods.
It's probably an honest mistake the first time or two, but he's done this every year since and has no credibility anymore.
After being wrong by a year or two, he should have explained what was going in, and shut up about it, with a simple I don't know when it'll be ready but you should see forward progress each year.
He is a smart guy and an idiot at the same time. I donāt know how it fits in the same person. He is not neurotypical.
He's not smart he is just in the elite club where he fails upwards, his name will be cemented beside DJ Khaled for most successful failure
get born rich
fail like a bitch
That's Elon
aww, he's a smidiot. That's idiartic, Elon! ;)
I really believed that...
Uh-huh... There is a long, LONG list of bullshit that he believed, and continues to believe. There comes a point where we either have to accept that he has the mental level of a 5 year old believing in Santa Claus, or that he is a narcissistic compulsive liar.
Now watch as Musk faces "consequences(TM)".
Why, he might have to pay a fine of a full hour's worth of profits that resulted from his actions!?
He's a military contractor.
Yes with Starlink which the military threatened they might nationalize if Musk sabotaged Ukraine access again.
I honestly don't think Musk's value as a military contractor is very high, and probably (hopefully) not enough to protect him from criminal liability.
Misinformation
Yes because snopes is a better source than CNN, WaPo, BBC, AP News, The Hill, Reuters and on and on.
Also he has admitted it himself:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66752264
So why don't you just butt off with your bullshit already? You are hereby reported.
Jesus christ dude. There's quote from the author himself, Walter Isaacson who is the person from whose book the whole claim originated from.
You believe him when the narrative suits you but you don't when it doesn't. Talk about cognitive dissonance lol
Enabling Starlink in Crimea would have been against the sanctions to Russia by the US. Literally illegal.
Anyway I'm done with you. Don't bother replying.
This is why itās important to opt out of arbitration!
Also notice the potential for fuckery in the statute of limitations here:
Without that specific moment to point to, to reset the clock through delayed discovery, Tesla could just say āYeah, we lied, but you bought the lie for 5 years, so now weāre in the clear!ā
Fuck the Musk and his inflated ego.
The part of the claim here where they wouldn't upgrade the cameras is a part that I'm highly interested in.
I don't expect tesla to upgrade any hardware beyond what they believe is required which they claim hardware 3 is.
But the moment a hardware 3 car can't flip a switch and become level 3/4 SAE autonomous and a hardware 4, 5, 6 or whatever it is if/when solved is required, I think there's a massive lawsuit there unless Tesla somehow upgrades the cars.
Suddenly the car didn't come with the hardware required and can't function as described, especially back when it was announced.
Tesla will say, oh we'll get it working on HW3 next year... and try to kick the can to avoid liability, but I don't think that will work long.
Edit: and as per the ruling, it sounds like the new knowledge that the car can't on HW3 but can on others, would trigger new knowledge opening up past the statute of limitations
Finally?
Sorry Tesla but every captcha about bicycles and street lights was just too good an opportunity to be bad! LOL ... bicycle! š² Nah! That's just š£ļø road! Continue!
That's not how FSD works. It's a neural net trained on millions of hours of video content of good human driving. Nowhere in the code is even specified what a bicycle is.
You train neuronal networks with labeled data and those captchas are used to create the labels. Its not specified in the code what a bicycle is, but in the training data.
Is that why it runs stop signs?
It was millions of hours of BMW owners driving.
Hahahahah fuck Elonās fraudster ass
Not for all the money in the world could you convince me to touch him, let alone what you propose.
Eh, I'd give him a poke.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A federal judge ruled yesterday that Tesla must face a lawsuit alleging that it committed fraud by misrepresenting the self-driving capabilities of its vehicles.
LoSavio points to a Tesla statement in October 2016 that all its cars going forward would have the "hardware needed for full self-driving capability," and a November 2016 email newsletter stating that "all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory now have full self-driving hardware."
According to the SAC [Second Amended Complaint], Tesla's cars have thus stalled at SAE Level 2 ("Partial Driving Automation"), which requires "the human driver's constant supervision, responsibility, and control."
Even if Tesla meant to convey that its hardware could reach Level 2 only, the SAC still sufficiently alleges that those representations reasonably misled LoSavio.
The complaint also "sufficiently alleges that Musk falsely represented the vehicle's future ability to self-drive cross-country and that LoSavio relied upon these representations pre-purchase," Lin concluded.
Musk claimed at an October 2016 news conference that a Tesla car would be able to drive from Los Angeles to New York City "by the end of next year without the need for a single touch."
The original article contains 509 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
They're faking it until they make it!
bye bye elon
He is rich all there will be is a minimal fine
nom nom nom
Interesting. https://youtu.be/rPt9hAC24MI?feature=shared
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/rPt9hAC24MI?feature=shared
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Ironically this comes at a time when FSD is getting so good that the car does indeed practically drive itself. It's still level 2 but the amount of driver interventions reguired to reach your destination has dropped to near zero. I don't think we're very far at all from an actual robotaxi and the ability to use your personal vehicle as such.
Meanwhile Mercedes has already reached level 3.
The link you didn't open has a video comparing Tesla and Mercedes driving the exact same route on autopilot.
Still ignoring the fact that this technology was advertised to arrive by 2017. Itās seven years overdue.
Thatās false advertising.
FIFY.
I don't know what this has to do with what I said. It's long overdue, yes. It was false advertising, yes. It's incredibly good nowdays, yes. Several things can be true at the same time.
Forgive the imperfect analogy, but if my wife left me because I wan an alcoholic, and I came back seven years later saying āIām sober now!ā, you think sheās going to take me back or have moved on with her fucking life?
Yeah I have no idea what you're trying to tell me. You're not going to buy a Tesla because they lied about FSD a decade earlier? Ok. Good for you?
As I explained somebody else the other day, software development follows a 90/10 rule in that 90% of the work that needs doing is in the last 10% of the result and these guys have been stuck for years at the "almost there" stage.
It's perfectly possible to hack your way for the first easy 90% of the result but that software development "method" won't get you up to the 99.999% levels of reliability (or whatever number of nines the regulations demand) needed for a FSD system to be certified as autonomous.
So no amount of people showing full self drive working without problems sometimes or even most of the time (or as you say, "practically") will show that Testla has the capability of doing the last 10% (which, remember, is most of the work), whilst them having been stuck at pretty much the current level for years is a good indication that they're probably stuck down a dead-end that will never lead to something that can achieve the necessary reliability to be certified as an autonomous system.
Also, in my professional opinion as a very senior software engineer, looking from the outside and judging by many software and UI design choices in their vehicles, they're unlikelly to actually be competent enough to pull it off and seem to be following a Tech Startup model (and I can tell you from experience in that Industry and others, that Startups are usually amateur hour, every hour of the day, every day of the week, every week of the year compared to all of the rest) hence me mentioning above the possibility that they've might have "hacked" (i.e. mainly gone at it by trial and error) their way up the first 90%.
Can't wait to take a real life Johnnycab.
Exactly the same price as a normal taxi (if not higher, because there's no competition left), but now all the money goes to needy Silicon Valley trillionaires, rather than some greedy low life taxi driver who just wants to waste that money on food and rent, rather than lovely sustaining growth.
That taxi might just aswell belong to a a private individual who instead of leaving their car at the company parking lot for the whole day sent it doing ridesharing.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
drive itself
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.