Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-12-08/tesla-lawsuit-full-self-driving-technology-failure-not-fraud
376 comments
I’m been on the fsd beta for a long time now and I have to say it’s remarkably improved over the last year. If it continues to improve at this rate for another year it’s going to be pretty useful. I use it to drive around seattle (which is a difficult driving place with randomly followed infrastructure standards and randomly driving drivers and randomly parked cars) and it used to be a death defying gripping of the steering wheel and grabbing it out of bone headed moves while everyone looks at me askance to a relatively chill experience. Yesterday I needed to take it in for some fender work (my wife isn’t the best driver and I got fsd as a donation to self driving research in the off chance it’ll let her someday delegate driving to the car, but since that hasn’t happened yet I have periodic body work that needs to be done as she pachinkos through the streets). The Tesla service center is in an industrial area in an insane interchange part of I5 with crazy off ramps and strange turns. I always get lost. I let fsd drive door to door and it did it flawlessly. That surprised me, but after each update it’s been getting considerably better.
It still has flaws - it widens it’s place in the lane on every on-ramp which is annoying and weird road conditions can confuse it about what to do next. It sometimes doesn’t anticipate well the turn signals of someone changing lanes leading to people flipping me off for not giving them space. But all in all, given the state of adaptive cruise control 10 years ago, this is a remarkable achievement to put in a consumer grade vehicle.
It still has flaws - it widens it’s place in the lane on every on-ramp which is annoying and weird road conditions can confuse it about what to do next. It sometimes doesn’t anticipate well the turn signals of someone changing lanes leading to people flipping me off for not giving them space. But all in all, given the state of adaptive cruise control 10 years ago, this is a remarkable achievement to put in a consumer grade vehicle.
Tesla's lawyers state: "mere failure to realize a long-term, aspirational goal is not fraud"
They intentionally neglect to acknowledge musk's many specific claims that involved specific timelines, as opposed to the nebulous long term aspirations they allude to.
They intentionally neglect to acknowledge musk's many specific claims that involved specific timelines, as opposed to the nebulous long term aspirations they allude to.
I welcome the public's acknowledgement that self-driving vehicles are completely infeasible for even the medium term future. It's just unfortunate that the trigger for this change seems not to be anything about snow, or the inability to replicate human flocking on buried/unmarked roads during winter, etc, but instead more about the current political fallout from Musk's take-over of Twitter.
I've owned Tesla's since 2016. At no time did I base my purchases on what the cars might be able to do in the future, only what they can do right now. Nor did I see any compelling reason to donate $10k - $15k to their R&D effort. The cars were compelling enough on their own merits and remain so. The FSD fiasco really does a disservice to what is otherwise a revolutionary car company producing excellent automobiles.
If they call it a failure, yet still sell it, then it becomes fraud, doesn't it?
If only Madoff had tried this trick. He did not commit fraud against investors - he had really hoped to make them that much money, but he failed to do it.
The argument is being taken out of context. Not saying that FSD is flawless. But Tesla isn't calling it a failure. They are saying it's not yet achieved. And it's a perfectly sane legal argument. Again, this does not mean Tesla is right here, just that the title is a misrepresentation of their argument.
Who would have thought that a camera-only system would struggle to succeed where systems that leverage $20,000 LIDAR sensors and racks of specialized machine learning hardware have met with only limited success?
Saying you want to climb Mount Everest and not being able to get all the way to the top is failure, not fraud. The fact that Musk charged people to watch muddies the waters a bit, though.
If you advertise a problem as already solved and just needs fine tuning and sell stuff based on it and continue with the lie even after there are clear signals of it likely failing then I don't think then it's a failure _AND_ fraud.
The fraudulent part is making absurd promised anyone with understanding of the topic knows you probably won't be able to keep. It is the part where you continue to push sells through this technology when it has shown to have problems.
Being optimistic is grate, but lying is still lying and ignoring facts is still ignoring facts.
The fraudulent part is making absurd promised anyone with understanding of the topic knows you probably won't be able to keep. It is the part where you continue to push sells through this technology when it has shown to have problems.
Being optimistic is grate, but lying is still lying and ignoring facts is still ignoring facts.
The failure to understand the context of the quote is palpable in both the article and comments.
This is a standard legal argument used as a defence against allegations of fraud, and it’s not a judgment of how successful (or not) the product is. The only thing it means is “notwithstanding whether we’ve achieved our goals, we have been honest and well-intentioned”.
This is a standard legal argument used as a defence against allegations of fraud, and it’s not a judgment of how successful (or not) the product is. The only thing it means is “notwithstanding whether we’ve achieved our goals, we have been honest and well-intentioned”.
Tesla's legal argument is not that it isn't fraud. It's that the Tesla purchase contract removes consumer rights and requires binding arbitration.
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has several investigations open, including a probe into why Teslas seem to disproportionately crash into emergency vehicles parked on the roadside. The agency has set no public timeline for a determination."
I wonder if this is the case of the U.S regulators turning their blind eyes to the problem as to not jeopardize Tesla's standing in the global EV market, much the same way FAA dragged its feet on grounding 737 MAX.
I'm still baffled as to how there has been no meaningful punitive action taken against Musk for all the false claims he has made over the years.
I wonder if this is the case of the U.S regulators turning their blind eyes to the problem as to not jeopardize Tesla's standing in the global EV market, much the same way FAA dragged its feet on grounding 737 MAX.
I'm still baffled as to how there has been no meaningful punitive action taken against Musk for all the false claims he has made over the years.
What?! The 2016 full-self driving video where Tesla drove from home to office was a fraud?!
I thought Musk got spoiled under the influence of his success. He might have been a bad apple all along. :(
I thought Musk got spoiled under the influence of his success. He might have been a bad apple all along. :(
> “The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not driving anything. The car is driving itself.”
> Tesla workers later revealed that the video was fabricated, done in multiple takes, with the driving system’s failures removed, including a crash into a fence. The video remains on Tesla’s website.
Hah, despite all of the Tesla news I somehow missed that this video was a fake and that the car crashed into a fence while filming.
> Tesla workers later revealed that the video was fabricated, done in multiple takes, with the driving system’s failures removed, including a crash into a fence. The video remains on Tesla’s website.
Hah, despite all of the Tesla news I somehow missed that this video was a fake and that the car crashed into a fence while filming.
I'll buy the Full Self-Driving Driving software if and when my insurance comopany offers a discount for doing so.
Otherwise, the car is fantastic to drive without it. I could not care less about his antics.
Otherwise, the car is fantastic to drive without it. I could not care less about his antics.
Tesla is a sham of a company. Not only the self driving stuff, but he's also building up his company to be like a giant, faceless tech company with customer support. Last week I was about to accept delivery of a Model S Plaid, I was on hold for an hour and 10 minutes with sales to even reach anyone, after hours of trying to find a number. I walked into the Porsche dealership and they pretty much were ready to bring out babes in bikini's and give me scotch. I know alot of people dislike Tesla due to their CEO, but the actual company is a giant fuckup and it's like talking to a faceless human.
In the mercede's dealership? They all drive mercede's, in the Honda dealership, they drive honda's. In the Tesla dealership? They drive super cheap, shitty cars, since they're effectively minimum, wage employees.
In the mercede's dealership? They all drive mercede's, in the Honda dealership, they drive honda's. In the Tesla dealership? They drive super cheap, shitty cars, since they're effectively minimum, wage employees.
FSD beta is fairly good, certainly better than the standard Autopilot. It's definitely not perfect, but so far for basic driving from point A to B it seems to work well. I can only see the tech improving as it gathers more data and feedback. It's a ML training data problem at this point, no?
Advertising and selling a feature that you don't have sure seems like fraud to me.
If it's "the feature is nearly ready but just needs some polish" there's an argument to be made that maybe you were just being a bit too hopeful. But "years and lots of fundamental research away, and we're not even sure what sensor systems were going to rely on", that's just fraud. You're looking for early stage investors, not customer preorders, at that point.
If it's "the feature is nearly ready but just needs some polish" there's an argument to be made that maybe you were just being a bit too hopeful. But "years and lots of fundamental research away, and we're not even sure what sensor systems were going to rely on", that's just fraud. You're looking for early stage investors, not customer preorders, at that point.
>>Tesla’s Full Self-Driving technology may be a failure, Tesla lawyers admit — but it’s not a fraud.
But it IS a fraud when you state or imply that it is usable with capabilities X, Y, and Z, and it actually is not.
Merely calling it "Full Self Driving" is a very clear statement that the damn thing will drive itself, and do so fully.
1st DDG Definition: Full: "2. Complete in every particular."
So, if is supposed to drive itself. Moreover, Tesla & Musk claim this capability is complete in every particular, as in it does it itself, not requiring me to add any capability.
This FSD claim has been going on since like 2014, with "autopilot Hardware 2.0" shipping when Barack Obama was still president [0].
Yet we still have nothing resembling actual "Full Self Driving" - which would be get in the car, tell it where to go, and get there without touching any controls or worrying about errors.
It'd be one thing if it was promised last year and it was not quite here yet.
But this is closer to a decade and FSD is NOWHERE CLOSE to this capability. This is one of the biggest vaporware scams ever.
[0] https://insideevs.com/news/443886/tesla-autopilot-evolution-...
But it IS a fraud when you state or imply that it is usable with capabilities X, Y, and Z, and it actually is not.
Merely calling it "Full Self Driving" is a very clear statement that the damn thing will drive itself, and do so fully.
1st DDG Definition: Full: "2. Complete in every particular."
So, if is supposed to drive itself. Moreover, Tesla & Musk claim this capability is complete in every particular, as in it does it itself, not requiring me to add any capability.
This FSD claim has been going on since like 2014, with "autopilot Hardware 2.0" shipping when Barack Obama was still president [0].
Yet we still have nothing resembling actual "Full Self Driving" - which would be get in the car, tell it where to go, and get there without touching any controls or worrying about errors.
It'd be one thing if it was promised last year and it was not quite here yet.
But this is closer to a decade and FSD is NOWHERE CLOSE to this capability. This is one of the biggest vaporware scams ever.
[0] https://insideevs.com/news/443886/tesla-autopilot-evolution-...
As a software engineer, I simply can’t trust software to drive my car 65mph in highway traffic. I have a Model Y, but never bought the autopilot. Actually even if Tesla pays me $15k per year to ask me to use autopilot, I’d say no. It is not worth the risk of crashes. But it always surprised me when I see many software engineers here in Silicon Valley driving on freeways using autopilot while watching videos or napping on the driver’s seat. My coworker even let autopilot to fully drive along the cliff roads in Yosemite. What a big heart…
A large factor in the valuation of Tesla is the notion that Tesla is not "just" a car maker. There used to be a good case for that: Tesla, by necessity, led the way in a more integrated electronics architecture for EV controls and infotainment. Self-driving looked promising. Breaking the dealer model in the US was very attractive to anyone who had a bad experience with car salesmen.
But, in the end, everyone puts their trousers on one leg at a time. Car OEM valuations will probably be higher than in the ICE age, and probably lower than $TSLA is today.
But, in the end, everyone puts their trousers on one leg at a time. Car OEM valuations will probably be higher than in the ICE age, and probably lower than $TSLA is today.
- But what really sets this product apart from others is its long-term, aspirational goals!
- You mean features?
- The problem with features is that they can also turn out to be bugs. Our innovation here was to do away with features.
- To get rid of bugs?
- That rights, to get rid of bugs: what sets aspirational goals apart from mere product features.
- But ..
- Product features can also turn out to be downright frauds. "This product features x" when it doesn't. Now that is fraud. But "this product aspires to x" and jeez, it fails to reach its goals. We're all human after all.
- You mean features?
- The problem with features is that they can also turn out to be bugs. Our innovation here was to do away with features.
- To get rid of bugs?
- That rights, to get rid of bugs: what sets aspirational goals apart from mere product features.
- But ..
- Product features can also turn out to be downright frauds. "This product features x" when it doesn't. Now that is fraud. But "this product aspires to x" and jeez, it fails to reach its goals. We're all human after all.
Did it even fail, though? AIUI, they never claimed more than SAE Level 2, meaning that the driver must maintain full control at all times...
He said at the semi unveiling in 2017 that they could already do autonomous truck convoys. No they couldn't. That's fraud.
But Elon told me it was only six months away
Two notes:
- selling something as a commercial product, claiming it can do something that actually can not is not failure, is fraud. Failure is selling something stating it's an experiment "use at your own risk, the price is low because of that";
- try seeing our kind of "piloting automation": in air and see it's FAR EASIER, we are in liquid environment without constant very near constraints. A ship travel from A to B, sure it need to take care of eventual other ships, floating obstacles etc, but in the mean they are FAR LESS than "other cars on the road" and far away, no ships normally travel as near as a car with another. Similarly for planes where there is even a third dimension of limited movement freedom.
Long story short:
- ALL modern companies sell experimental cheap crap sold as finished high-quality product because the private research model IS A FAILURE, we need PUBLIC RESEARCH for public development where the private sector pick things to implement and sell BUT do not drive the research;
- ALL efforts to mimic something old with new tech is doomed to fail. Computers as featured-typewriters was an idiocy, similar try mimicking the physical office desk on a computer (see for instance old General Magic UI) and so on. People DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE and that's why keeping the old paradigm in the new tech spread well commercially and ultimately fails creating big disasters, that's why we need culture, witch means PUBLIC schools, universities, open to anyone for free, but we need to change to make evolution happen. We can't get FSD for cars, we can get for flying cars. We can't get flying cars we all dream since decades in modern cities built for cars on roads and so on. The public do the research for the sake of humanity not single cohort profits, spread the new knowledge via public schools, institutions, private sector push such change in the society and the market create the equilibrium.
- selling something as a commercial product, claiming it can do something that actually can not is not failure, is fraud. Failure is selling something stating it's an experiment "use at your own risk, the price is low because of that";
- try seeing our kind of "piloting automation": in air and see it's FAR EASIER, we are in liquid environment without constant very near constraints. A ship travel from A to B, sure it need to take care of eventual other ships, floating obstacles etc, but in the mean they are FAR LESS than "other cars on the road" and far away, no ships normally travel as near as a car with another. Similarly for planes where there is even a third dimension of limited movement freedom.
Long story short:
- ALL modern companies sell experimental cheap crap sold as finished high-quality product because the private research model IS A FAILURE, we need PUBLIC RESEARCH for public development where the private sector pick things to implement and sell BUT do not drive the research;
- ALL efforts to mimic something old with new tech is doomed to fail. Computers as featured-typewriters was an idiocy, similar try mimicking the physical office desk on a computer (see for instance old General Magic UI) and so on. People DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE and that's why keeping the old paradigm in the new tech spread well commercially and ultimately fails creating big disasters, that's why we need culture, witch means PUBLIC schools, universities, open to anyone for free, but we need to change to make evolution happen. We can't get FSD for cars, we can get for flying cars. We can't get flying cars we all dream since decades in modern cities built for cars on roads and so on. The public do the research for the sake of humanity not single cohort profits, spread the new knowledge via public schools, institutions, private sector push such change in the society and the market create the equilibrium.
This header is misleading. Lawyers are making a legal point, not a prediction on the tech or where it stands and certainly not saying "its a failure". They don't even have the technical insight to make that assertion.
Clearly even level 4 autonomy is far beyond what any near future technology is capable of. If at the very least due to the fact that a very commonly encountered condition, construction work, effectively requires an AGI to navigate.
Which would imply the best achievable self driving is around level 3 autonomy.