• @Buffalox
    link
    English
    10
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -9
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      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.

      I’ve 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.

      • @Buffalox
        link
        English
        7
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        I don’t see anyone claiming they have “working full self driving”

        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 don’t see anyone claiming they have “working full self driving”.

        That’s decidedly false, because you yourself wrote:

        It can do that now.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -327 days ago

          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.

          • @Buffalox
            link
            English
            4
            edit-2
            27 days ago

            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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        327 days ago

        “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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -1
          edit-2
          27 days ago

          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.

          • @Buffalox
            link
            English
            3
            edit-2
            27 days ago

            I have no idea what it’s 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?

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -1
              edit-2
              27 days ago

              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?

          • @Buffalox
            link
            English
            227 days ago

            Mercedes: Requirements to be used Legally.
            Tesla: Not Legal unverified results.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            127 days ago

            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.

          • @[email protected]B
            link
            fedilink
            English
            127 days ago

            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.

      • @efstajas
        link
        English
        327 days ago

        I don’t see anyone claiming they have “working full self driving”

        … They’re literally calling it “Full self driving”.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -127 days ago

          …and I don’t see anyone claiming it to be “working” as in it being safe enough to not need supervision.

          • @efstajas
            link
            English
            226 days ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              26 days ago

              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.

              • @efstajas
                link
                English
                1
                edit-2
                26 days ago

                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”.

                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.

                Full Self Driving is just the name of the software

                Yes, which is the problem.

                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.

                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.

                Wouldn’t make much sense to call it “partial self driving under supervision” because Full Self Driving is a better marketing term.

                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.

                Misleading? Well yeah perhaps but that’s what marketing teams do. Nothing new there.

                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?

                Not a single Tesla owner is under the illusion that you can just enable the system and take a nap.

                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?

                Doesn’t mean people don’t do that but they know that they shouldn’t.

                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.

                Personally I don’t see a huge issue with that name. It’s level 2

                As you say, it’s level 2. “Full self driving” is level 5. You still don’t see the problem with the name?

                it does what the name implies: drives itself

                It quite literally does not drive itself given that a driver needs to be around and alert to take over at any moment.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  26 days ago

                  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?