I agree with this wholeheartedly, even as a Tesla owner. Tesla goofed from the beginning by calling tech like "Autosteer" and "Traffic Assisted Cruise Control" under the moniker "Autopilot" while shifting everything above that to "Full Self-Driving". They should have called it "CoPilot" since that infers that you're still the driver in charge of controlling the vehicle and it would have had exactly the same reception (possibly better) than what's happening now. As it stands, it's misleading and, frankly, disappointing to get into a Tesla for the first time and try "Autopilot" only to realize that you have to keep your hands on the wheel, navigate the accelerator and brakes, stop at lights and stop signs, and basically drive the car while it keeps you in the lane and stops you from hitting other cars. That's not "Autopilot", that's "CoPilot".
Actually I think the name "Autopilot" is the least troublesome part of the marketing.
Other car makers call their systems CoPilot, ProPilot, SuperCruise, whatever and I think the name matters less than the communication and details of using the system.
The main Autopilot marketing page shows a video of a Tesla driving itself, says the Driver is there for legal purposes only, and provides no other disclaimers about the limitations, or that the demonstration is of internal test software and not reproducible with consumer vehicles.
Actually using the car, the system is fairly clear about the need to pay attention and keep your hands on the wheel, but it allows you to engage Autosteer in areas the manual says you should not (ie city streets) and does not clearly indicate what areas are good or not good for using Autosteer. SuperCruise only works on specifically listed highway segments, which limits its usefulness but also prevents these issues.
Also Tesla relies on the steering wheel torque sensor to determine driver presence. This leads to false negatives (my hands are on the wheel but not providing a turning force so the car gives an alert) and is easily bypassed (there are third party products that clip on to the steering wheel and provide enough weight to fool the system).
Competing systems (SuperCruise, BMW) use driver monitor cameras or capacitive wheel sensors to provide a better indication of driver attentiveness.
It would be a huge improvement (and a weight off my shoulders as a driver) if the car could show you the confidence level it has in the current road situation. Eg. I took a tesla through the snow, and I wouldn't trust autopilot with my life in that situation, but when driving on 80 towards tahoe during the summer, it's a godsend.
Considering they now allow use of the interior camera during events there is no reason they cannot expand on that for insuring the driver is paying attention
> Tesla goofed from the beginning by calling tech like "Autosteer" and "Traffic Assisted Cruise Control" under the moniker "Autopilot"
I am not accusing you specifically of using weak language, but let's call a spade a spade: it's not a "goof," it's a dangerous and deceptive business practice. It's one that Elon Musk is directly responsible for and directly encouraged with misleading statements where he deliberately exaggerated the capabilities of Autopilot. It's a disgrace and one of many many many reasons why Tesla needs to outright fire Musk. There are too many good people at Tesla, who don't deserve his selfish and irresponsible leadership.
To the people pointing out that airplane autopilots work similarly to Tesla Autopilot: the problem is not the foolish Tesla owners have never flows a plane before. The problem is that in the public mind, they "know" that "autopilot" means "totally autonomous" and they "know" that the computer-car-spaceship supergenius Elon Musk has been hyping his self-driving tech.
It is true that highly knowledgeable people know that Musk is an idiot conman, that "autopilot" is a very limited set of features, and so on - and that none of these things detract from the fact that Tesla makes a good car. But Tesla fans shouldn't invent ridiculous exonerations. Tesla has a responsibility for the safety of its users and they failed. Fans (along with the EU and US) need to hold the company accountable.
> It's a disgrace and one of many many many reasons why Tesla needs to outright fire Musk.
I drove a co-worker's Tesla and I loved it--and I will never buy one for the reasons you mentioned. I'm glad Tesla exists to force other automakers to compete on the electric front, but that's the extent of my admiration for them.
> let's call a spade a spade: it's not a "goof," it's a dangerous and deceptive business practice
There's a very odd tendency for people to engage with corporate PR packages in the same way they engage in interpersonal interactions. In the abstract, sure, they get that it's a crafted artifact meant to maximize profits, but in the immediate sense... they act as though the words have any intrinsic meaning at all rather than "white noise that maximizes likelihood of profit, while ideally not instigating litigation or regulation."
It's not unique to Tesla. It's every single time a major corp. issues a significant public statement, as though it's some sort of earnest missive from the founder rather than a PR-crafted artifact vetted by legal, compliance, and probably the COO and CMO, if not a board member or two.
Corps are profit-maximizing engines. They are not your buddies. They are not speaking from the heart. They're not even spinning something that started off as something from the heart. They are designing cognitive drone strikes meant to optimize public reception of current business practices.
> It is true that highly knowledgeable people know that Musk is an idiot conman
Sorry to nitpick but highly knowledgeable people will surely never claim Musk is an idiot anything. He is definitely a genius in several ways.
For something so technologically advanced as self-driving cars, his stuttering style seems to convey more sincerity to the general public than Steve Job's glib speech ever would
It goes further than that: and then, when - predictably - people die the company turns around and engages in the most terrible form of victim blaming I've ever seen, to suggest that those consumers should have known better than to believe their marketing.
Some of your points are valid though saying he is an idiot and a conman undercuts your statement.
The man is no idiot, and while some of the things he has said have not come true, or not been true to begin with, i do not think it is not reasonable to describe him as a “conman.”
Isn't airplane autopilot only used when there's no traffic around. An analogous autopilot for cars would never be used unless if you're in an empty parking lot.
The people who claim airplane autopilots work similarly are flat out lying. Pilots can briefly take their attention away from the plane without issue. They have to be present and ready to intervene but not constantly closely monitoring what the aircraft is doing. There is a very real difference in the amount of attention required.
I don't think it's dangerous, necessarily, unless you ignore people's personal responsibility in the situation as well. As currently designed, "Autopilot" requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel, provide rotational counter-weight on it, and you have to agree to safety and attention disclaimers before you can even enable the features.
Yes, there are absolutely misconceptions that may happen with the general public who think that "Autopilot" is completely autonomous but anyone who actually owns the vehicle and has the ability to drive with it would have to be willingly negligent in order to consider it "dangerous" or "deceptive". As an example, someone posted a link as a comment to the OP stating that Elon has been marketing Teslas as FSD when, in reality, the blog post in question just says that every Tesla has the hardware that makes it capable of it and that's absolutely true.
You're right that the general public auto-translates "Autopilot" to "Fully Self-Driving" but that's just as much a media and reporting problem as it is a Tesla or Elon problem.
> It is true that highly knowledgeable people know that Musk is an idiot conman
That and the richest man on the planet. What does this tell about us as a species? Some compare him to the late Jobs. I think this couldn’t be farther from the truth.
> All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.
> They should have called it "CoPilot" [rather than "AutoPilot"]
Huh but a co-pilot is much more capable than an auto-pilot system. An auto-pilot mostly keeps you level, going the right speed, and pointing in the right direction, and can do some limited landing and things.
That sounds to me exactly like what Tesla's system does?
A co-pilot is a human who can take complete control from you for the rest of the whole flight and deal with any emergency or unexpected situation. The co-pilot is much more advanced than the autopilot.
But autopilot in a plane doesn't require the pilot to take over in a split second. Keeping you level, at the right speed, in the right direction, etc. is enough to keep the plane safe. Pilots have tens of seconds to reorient themselves to avert any disaster.
In contrast, Telsa "autopilot" requires constant vigilance since you might have to take over without any warning.
You're transposing airplane terminology with automobile terminology. In a car, the co-pilot is typically someone that sits in the passenger seat and functions only as an additional set of eyes. They can't take complete control over the vehicle from that spot. Cars, unlike airplanes, don't have two sets of full controls.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the general public has an inaccurate understanding of what airplane autopilots are capable of. The belief that modern airline pilots just push a button to turn on the plane then take a nap until the plane lands is widespread.
In naming their system after a system the public has a poor understanding of, Tesla is being misleading.
It sure does get them a lot of attention though! My Jeep Cherokee has lane assist, adaptive cruise control, auto-parking, and crash detection (emergency braking) but they don’t get all this press about it.
But it doesn't automatically change lanes to follow routes or pass slow traffic. It doesn't take exits or navigate interchanges. It doesn't stop for stoplights. You can't drive it around a parking lot from your phone with nobody in the driver's seat.
What Autopilot offers is not "Full Self Driving", but don't pretend like the features on your Jeep are equivalent.
Maybe because it’s not the same ? I don’t own a Jeep but Lane assist typically means warning the user if you drive over the line. Tesla steers by itself and more.
Adaptive Cruise Control typically works only above a given speed. Tesla’s does work at low speed too.
At least Tesla cars seem to do more than the German cars I have driven before.
Elon is a master of saying something that's technically correct, but sounds like something completely different, something that people want to believe and is completely untrue. So the car has "full self-driving capability" but is not actually self driving. The "basic functionality for L5 will be done this year" but not actual self driving [0]. Autopilot branding comes from the same strategy.
Elon became a master at low key commenting on features "soon to be released" and on the "verge of" but those comments are non binding. You know what those comments do? They become nudges for stonk buyers who want to get in on the deal early before the features are released & the stonk price goes higher. Yeah, Elon knows how to make potential investors go crazy with the "buy low and sell high" fomo; Just read his Twitter feed filled with carrots on the proverbial stick. Oh Elon, you cheeky, cheeky bastard :)
TTYl everybody, gotta go catch my robo taxi! opens Waymo on smartphone
PS: Never forget, Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning were the original Tesla visionaries, Elon pretty much just bought his way into the vision...and pushed out Martin Eberhard.
I too have a Tesla vehicle, and I too agree with this German regulator's decision. You CAN'T climb from the driver's seat to the back seat and take a nap while the car is running. And that's because lane holding and adaptive cruise control are not reliable enough.
"Autopilot" is deceptive. In aviation, it's hard to engage an autopilot until you have a desired altitude, heading, and speed. And that's in the sky, far from guard rails and hopefully far from other traffic.
Oh, and by the way, before you do any of that you have to go to school, pass a rigorous practical test, get your hands on an airplane with autopilot, put fuel in it, get cleared for taxi, takeoff, climbout and cruise. There are some hurdles to jump over.
I wish they had used some other word to brand this stuff.
And, they've been saying "Level 5 this year" for a few years now. This is the kind of hype that got us the "AI Winter" back in the 1970s. Let's not go there again.
In aviation the auto-pilot is a relatively dumb machine that must be supervised, whereas a co-pilot is a human that could be trusted with full operations of the aircraft.
I find it rather droll that the common use of the words completely inverted the original meaning.
It likely inverted because vehicles don't come with two sets of steering instruments and therefore co-pilot/driver means something else in the driving world.
Putting aside that modern plane autopilots can also navigate and land planes, the common definition of words is often more important than the technical definition. Especially when it comes to marketing to the general public. Terminology gets reused because it has a common usage and somebody wants to use that to frame their new & shiny product.
Ask a normal person what they think autopilot does and they'll say "the plane flys by itself". Using that for cars becomes "the car drives itself". Same for copilot, most people probably think they're there to help the pilot.
There is precedent for using the word auto-pilot[1], even in a plane the pilots are required to pay attention. It’s only the deceptive claims of the system’s ability that should be banned.
We should actually look at the court's reasoning (which I can't find referenced anywhere in the news articles). I doubt it singularly revolves around the interpretation of the word autopilot.
What I've realized is that Elon Musk simply puts less value on individual human lives than most others do. I don't mean that quite as harshly as it comes off, but it does seem that Elon likely believes the world would be a better place if all of the "dumbest" people were allowed to get themselves killed, allowing the rest of the human race to move forward. He may have a point, but I can't go down that path with him.
I was reading somewhere that a while back Germany classified "autopilot" to be at least Level 4, where's in case of emergency the car needs to be able to take and maintain control for a least X-time duration. Under those rules Tesla does not qualify, and neither do other manufacturers. However, if the rules are rules, it would be unfair that Tesla gets to advertise something that others aren't allowed to.
I didn't even realise that was all that the touted "Tesla Autopilot" did, so much was the hype around the internet. My 20k car does the same then (lane keeping + auto emergency braking).
This is how evolution works though, he described it himself. "There will be death, there will be some outcry, and [regulation will step in to move the evolution in the direction of absolute Good] ..."
The issue is one of definition. I don't know why people associate autopilot with a definition that isn't autopilot.
An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft, marine craft or spacecraft without requiring constant manual control by a human operator. Autopilot does not replace human operators. Instead, autopilot assists the operator's control of the vehicle, allowing the operator to focus on broader aspects of operations (for example, monitoring the trajectory, weather and on-board systems) [0]
The "why" is not really relevant here, the general perception is. The fact is, if you say "autopilot" and "self driving capabilities" to most people, they will infer that the car does not need a driver to be operated safely, which is definitely not the case.
Because it is being sold to customers in a different context. Autopilot for planes does not need to take into account other planes (flight paths are separated) to the same degree as cars do (where other "obstacles" constantly zip next to you).
Sure. And during those hours of straight and level flight you can read a book or talk to the cabin crew or have a meal. Shouldn't do that in the car (yet).
Good. These statements are lies. The company should face punishment in the US for saying that full self-driving is blocked by “regulatory approval” when they’re still an unknown number of years away from even being able to demo something they plan to ship.
They still don’t know if full self-driving is even possible at the required level of reliability with their current hardware suite. They could well be wrong and sitting on a scandal that will eclipse Theranos.
Which statements? This is what they say when you select the full self driving option when ordering a car:
>The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates.
When it gets there, regulatory approval will absolutely be a bottleneck to deployment. They don't say it is a current blocker.
And it won't come close to Theranos. Tesla makes real products that are class-leading. Even if Tesla can't reach level 5, it will be damn close and make driving 10-100x safer than just a human.
This is an absolute abuse of language. Can I say that my backyard nuclear fusion reactors are held back by regulatory approval? Surely when I finally get around to building a working one, I will have to jump through those pesky hoops.
Sure, but to even mention it now is disingenuous because they’re not even close to having a solution that their own engineering department would be willing to ship.
You and I have no idea whether it’s possible to get close to level 5 with their currently shipping hardware. Neither do they. And this stuff about being 10-100x safer than a human is pure fantasy right now. The industry is incredibly far away from that and there’s no evidence to suggest Tesla is years ahead of other teams working on the problem.
And it won't come close to Theranos. Tesla makes real products that are class-leading.
Class-leading in what sense(s)?
Even if Tesla can't reach level 5, it will be damn close
But that's the problem with self-driving cars. Damn close isn't good enough. A miss is as good as a mile.
The problem with the self-driving/automation scale is that anything around levels 2-4 probably shouldn't be allowed on public roads, at least not yet.
Basic driver aids, where the driver is always fully engaged but the system can help to avoid mistakes, are proven to improve safety. This is what you get at level 1, and such technologies are already widespread in the industry.
If we can ever make a fully autonomous vehicle that can genuinely cope with any driving conditions, so you don't need any driver or controls in the vehicle any more, then obviously this has the potential to beat human drivers. This is level 5. But we don't know how to do this yet, and I have seen absolutely no evidence so far that anyone will know how to do it any time soon either.
In between, we have several variations where a human driver is required for some of the monitoring and control of the vehicle but not all. This has some horrible safety implications, particularly around the transitions between human- and vehicle-controlled modes of operation, and around creating a false sense of security for the human driver. The legal small print will probably say that they must remain fully alert and able to take over immediately at any time, but whether it is within human capability to actually do that effectively is an entirely different question.
and make driving 10-100x safer than just a human.
I've been driving for more than 25 years, and racked up hundreds of thousands of miles behind the wheel. I've never caused an accident, as far as I'm aware. I've never had a ticket. I try to be courteous to my fellow road users and give a comfortable ride to any passengers I have with me. What, in your opinion, would driving 10-100x safer than mine look like?
Humans certainly aren't perfect drivers and we have plenty of variation in ability. Things can go wrong, and I'm sure we'd all be happy to see fewer tragedies on our roads. But given the vast amounts of travel we undertake and how many of us do drive, autonomous vehicles will need an extremely good record -- far better than they have so far -- to justify the sort of claim you're making here.
> The Munich court agreed with the industry body’s assessment and banned Tesla Germany from including “full potential for autonomous driving” and “Autopilot inclusive” in its German advertising materials.
Fully autonomous driving won't be here for _at least_ half a decade so this judgement makes complete sense. Tesla was engaged in flase advertising.
"I remain confident that we will have the basic functionality for level five autonomy complete this year.
"There are no fundamental challenges remaining.
"There are many small problems.
"And then there's the challenge of solving all those small problems and putting the whole system together."
Real-world testing was needed to uncover what would be a "long tail" of problems, he added."
This is so ridiculous. Of course the basic functionality is easy. The whole point of having intelligent drivers is dealing with the edge cases.
I realize this is a sarcastic comment, but I think this illustrates the problem.
Tesla vehicles cannot operate fully autonomous as-of now. Tesla has no idea if they'll need to replace or upgrade hardware either. They simply have not solved the problem yet, but want everyone to buy into the hype. And, the hype machine is working, unfortunately.
It's a scam. They're implying level 5 capability is just around the corner, when none of the current hardware will ever get past level 2. The current cameras can't even stay clean enough to keep autopilot reliable, it'd be pretty foolish to rely on them for any kind of real self-driving.
I love my car but the FSD debacle is embarassing. A lot of people are finding out that they'll never get anywhere near $8K value from their pre-purchase, and they bought a license that expires when they sell the car. I expect a class action lawsuit eventually (I'm surprised it hasn't happened already).
This is correct. The driver is responsible when their actions—in contravention of the road rules—cause an accident. If a vehicle is L5, the only "driver" is software. This software would need to attain a driver license just like a human would. Thus software becomes the vehicle's legal driver for the purpose of accountability in an accident.
Tesla is absolutely willing to take responsibility. You'll have to use Tesla as your car insurance provider, but it'll be cheaper than anyone else's insurance so that's fine.
Why would it be cheaper? Because they're insuring a driver that never gets angry, never gets distracted, doesn't drink and has high resolution dash cams pointing in every direction and capturing every moment. Even as the software is imperfect, it's going to have so many fewer accidents that the statistical risk of insuring the entire fleet is going to be minuscule compared to random humans.
I wonder why Tesla even needed to go that far to make the product sell. It is already a damn good car, a leader in its space. Also, Waymo which was closest at that time to Level 5 autonomy was far off from a product.
It’s never been about selling product, although it helps. The hype around autonomy and full self driving has fuelled their share price growth for some time.
Just selling cars alone does not justify Tesla’s current valuation (how could it? Making cars is a notoriously tricky and oftentimes unprofitable business).
I own a Tesla and love it. Having said that, “full self driving” is so far off what it actually does it’s actually not just a marketing issue, it is a safety issue.
I’ve had my Tesla drive towards an incoming lane, slam on the breaks in the middle of the highway with no cars in front of us, swerve into another lane with no warning, and probably other hiccups I don’t remember.
I know now I not only need to keep my hands on the wheel but I need to actively make sure the car doesn’t kill us. And I know the car warned me the feature required awareness, but its name made me think it was way more developed and safe than it actually is, and that disconnect will surely cause other drivers to trust it more than they should.
This is what bothers me the most about "Autopilot". Marketing aside I think that this level of automation is in an uncanny valley of danger. It isn't good enough to take full control, but it is good enough that the driver feels safe enough to get distracted.
I'm sure there are many of drivers who keep their full attention on the road, but in general humans are bad at focusing on tedious things that they don't feel are necessary.
When I test drove a Tesla for a weekend my opinion of the Autopilot was the same as the car's owner: "It drives like a learner driver". Just like the nervous parent teaching their teenager to drive, this is not a relaxing experience.
However, the speed-adaptive cruise control is the best I've ever experienced. It maintains the set speed exactly, slows down for corners automatically, and follows the car in front as if there was a steel rod connecting the two vehicles.
Using the cruise control in the Tesla was some of the most relaxing long-distance driving I've ever done in my life...
His remarks talking about how Level 5 is fundamentally solved should be investigated by the FTC. I think he is purposefully and fraudulently saying that self-driving will be available to get more people to pay the $8000 for the self-driving software "before it goes up". They should make sure his statements are actually true otherwise he would be fined severely because to me, self-driving is decades away still.
When are we going to address the elephant in the room?
Advertising regulators aren't able to regulate, or arre taking too long to regulate, and we're leaving this to platforms.
When it should be done by a regulator, and fines should be applied to both the advertiser and the media owner - BECAUSE YES, media owners/platforms have the responsibility and should abide by law. I'm looking at Google/Facebook.
If platforms can't do it, too bad on them, pay up.
False advertising is alive and well, and it's encouraged. People are being defrauded and we're whistling.
Whether or not a camera-based solution will work reliably in the future is not the issue at hand here.
The issue is the vast, vast gap between the current capability of Autopilot vs. what it is marketed as, and how this false advertising can literally kill the average consumer.
> Whether or not a camera-based solution will work reliably in the future is not the issue at hand here.
Actually, it is precisely the issue at hand:
From the ruling:
> The Munich court agreed with the industry body’s assessment and banned Tesla Germany from including “full potential for autonomous driving”.... in its German advertising materials.
So Tesla are not allowed to advertise that it has the potential to do it in the future.
As a Tesla owner, and regardless of the presentation, I have serious doubt that Tesla will be able to solve all the edge cases. Machine learning needs data, and with my family in the car, I don't want it to make a decision whether or not to break, while heading in ongoing traffic. I want the car to know.
Right now, 99% reasonable self-driving doesn't bother me because I am always in control, and I already know where the car is going to mess up and get ready to take control ahead of time. It works, and it works really well.
But the different between 100% and the 99% is all the difference that matters, and it's colossal.
I hope they can figure this out, but I don't know how. I hope they do.
2. Some company will succeed at L5 FSD, eventually. Just because it can be done does not mean that Tesla will do it. Tesla has been selling Vaporware for a decade, and they are investing a lot of resources in trying to get FSD to work with the hardware they sold customers 5 years ago to save face, while right now we don't know, and many do not believe, that such hardware suffices. Companies that have not tied themselves to such promises are much more flexible from a technology point-of-view to make quicker progress.
For all we know, next year somebody could ship a smaller, better, and cheaper lidar systems, that might give every manufacturer willing to use them a huge advantage over Tesla. Tesla would be in a very tight spot to incorporate such technology into their existing customer base.
I don't think we will see L5 in the next 10-20 years and a lot of things can happen in such a time-frame technology wise.
2024. Cathie Wood's bull case for everything going right for Tesla is 24k/share in 2024. She also breaks out everything else, shows what happens to the share price if autonomy doesn't happen, or if they don't keep building gigafactories, etc.
Yeah, but that's how every single thing that Elon Musk does is.
I followed all those failures at SpaceX before they landed the first booster, or the Model 3 intro, or fairing catches, or the original Model S. These things all took a lot longer than you'd expect from his comments, but they all happened!
Google has a much larger and better funded team that still doesnt seem close. Karpathy is no doubt smart but google has like 10 karpathys for every one TESLA has.
Readit News
Other car makers call their systems CoPilot, ProPilot, SuperCruise, whatever and I think the name matters less than the communication and details of using the system.
The main Autopilot marketing page shows a video of a Tesla driving itself, says the Driver is there for legal purposes only, and provides no other disclaimers about the limitations, or that the demonstration is of internal test software and not reproducible with consumer vehicles.
https://www.tesla.com/autopilot
Actually using the car, the system is fairly clear about the need to pay attention and keep your hands on the wheel, but it allows you to engage Autosteer in areas the manual says you should not (ie city streets) and does not clearly indicate what areas are good or not good for using Autosteer. SuperCruise only works on specifically listed highway segments, which limits its usefulness but also prevents these issues.
Also Tesla relies on the steering wheel torque sensor to determine driver presence. This leads to false negatives (my hands are on the wheel but not providing a turning force so the car gives an alert) and is easily bypassed (there are third party products that clip on to the steering wheel and provide enough weight to fool the system).
Competing systems (SuperCruise, BMW) use driver monitor cameras or capacitive wheel sensors to provide a better indication of driver attentiveness.
This alone feels like lawsuit-bait.
I'm surprised it took this long for the courts to get involved.
No other disclaimers? Are we reading the same page you linked?
The title of the page clearly says “Future of Driving”
“Autopilot today and full self-driving capabilities in the future...“
The page then goes on to define what Autopilot is and concludes with this:
“Current Autopilot features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous.”
It should be called 'Cruise Control Plus'.
Or 'Cruise Control Augmentation'.
It shouldn't really even hint at autonomy.
I am not accusing you specifically of using weak language, but let's call a spade a spade: it's not a "goof," it's a dangerous and deceptive business practice. It's one that Elon Musk is directly responsible for and directly encouraged with misleading statements where he deliberately exaggerated the capabilities of Autopilot. It's a disgrace and one of many many many reasons why Tesla needs to outright fire Musk. There are too many good people at Tesla, who don't deserve his selfish and irresponsible leadership.
To the people pointing out that airplane autopilots work similarly to Tesla Autopilot: the problem is not the foolish Tesla owners have never flows a plane before. The problem is that in the public mind, they "know" that "autopilot" means "totally autonomous" and they "know" that the computer-car-spaceship supergenius Elon Musk has been hyping his self-driving tech.
It is true that highly knowledgeable people know that Musk is an idiot conman, that "autopilot" is a very limited set of features, and so on - and that none of these things detract from the fact that Tesla makes a good car. But Tesla fans shouldn't invent ridiculous exonerations. Tesla has a responsibility for the safety of its users and they failed. Fans (along with the EU and US) need to hold the company accountable.
I drove a co-worker's Tesla and I loved it--and I will never buy one for the reasons you mentioned. I'm glad Tesla exists to force other automakers to compete on the electric front, but that's the extent of my admiration for them.
There's a very odd tendency for people to engage with corporate PR packages in the same way they engage in interpersonal interactions. In the abstract, sure, they get that it's a crafted artifact meant to maximize profits, but in the immediate sense... they act as though the words have any intrinsic meaning at all rather than "white noise that maximizes likelihood of profit, while ideally not instigating litigation or regulation."
It's not unique to Tesla. It's every single time a major corp. issues a significant public statement, as though it's some sort of earnest missive from the founder rather than a PR-crafted artifact vetted by legal, compliance, and probably the COO and CMO, if not a board member or two.
Corps are profit-maximizing engines. They are not your buddies. They are not speaking from the heart. They're not even spinning something that started off as something from the heart. They are designing cognitive drone strikes meant to optimize public reception of current business practices.
The same "highly knowledgable people" who have been shorting TSLA and parroting that the company is going broke any moment now, surely.
I'm actually surprised people aren't ashamed to write such utter nonsense in a place like HN.
Sorry to nitpick but highly knowledgeable people will surely never claim Musk is an idiot anything. He is definitely a genius in several ways.
For something so technologically advanced as self-driving cars, his stuttering style seems to convey more sincerity to the general public than Steve Job's glib speech ever would
The man is no idiot, and while some of the things he has said have not come true, or not been true to begin with, i do not think it is not reasonable to describe him as a “conman.”
Yes, there are absolutely misconceptions that may happen with the general public who think that "Autopilot" is completely autonomous but anyone who actually owns the vehicle and has the ability to drive with it would have to be willingly negligent in order to consider it "dangerous" or "deceptive". As an example, someone posted a link as a comment to the OP stating that Elon has been marketing Teslas as FSD when, in reality, the blog post in question just says that every Tesla has the hardware that makes it capable of it and that's absolutely true.
You're right that the general public auto-translates "Autopilot" to "Fully Self-Driving" but that's just as much a media and reporting problem as it is a Tesla or Elon problem.
Musk may be many, many things - perhaps even a conman - but he is in no way an “idiot” in any sane definition of that word.
That and the richest man on the planet. What does this tell about us as a species? Some compare him to the late Jobs. I think this couldn’t be farther from the truth.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170201120106/https://www.tesla...
They wanted people to believe that this had more capabilities than it really does.
Huh but a co-pilot is much more capable than an auto-pilot system. An auto-pilot mostly keeps you level, going the right speed, and pointing in the right direction, and can do some limited landing and things.
That sounds to me exactly like what Tesla's system does?
A co-pilot is a human who can take complete control from you for the rest of the whole flight and deal with any emergency or unexpected situation. The co-pilot is much more advanced than the autopilot.
In contrast, Telsa "autopilot" requires constant vigilance since you might have to take over without any warning.
they even replaced - hardware to - capability to be even more ambiguous.
In naming their system after a system the public has a poor understanding of, Tesla is being misleading.
What Autopilot offers is not "Full Self Driving", but don't pretend like the features on your Jeep are equivalent.
Adaptive Cruise Control typically works only above a given speed. Tesla’s does work at low speed too.
At least Tesla cars seem to do more than the German cars I have driven before.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-autonomous/tesla-ve...
Elon became a master at low key commenting on features "soon to be released" and on the "verge of" but those comments are non binding. You know what those comments do? They become nudges for stonk buyers who want to get in on the deal early before the features are released & the stonk price goes higher. Yeah, Elon knows how to make potential investors go crazy with the "buy low and sell high" fomo; Just read his Twitter feed filled with carrots on the proverbial stick. Oh Elon, you cheeky, cheeky bastard :)
TTYl everybody, gotta go catch my robo taxi! opens Waymo on smartphone
PS: Never forget, Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning were the original Tesla visionaries, Elon pretty much just bought his way into the vision...and pushed out Martin Eberhard.
"Autopilot" is deceptive. In aviation, it's hard to engage an autopilot until you have a desired altitude, heading, and speed. And that's in the sky, far from guard rails and hopefully far from other traffic.
Oh, and by the way, before you do any of that you have to go to school, pass a rigorous practical test, get your hands on an airplane with autopilot, put fuel in it, get cleared for taxi, takeoff, climbout and cruise. There are some hurdles to jump over.
I wish they had used some other word to brand this stuff.
And, they've been saying "Level 5 this year" for a few years now. This is the kind of hype that got us the "AI Winter" back in the 1970s. Let's not go there again.
You can't do this with an aircraft autopilot either, there must always be a human pilot ready to take over at a moment's notice.
I find it rather droll that the common use of the words completely inverted the original meaning.
Aviation autopilots can do even less than that and yet they are still called "autopilot". Altitude hold? That's autopilot.
Also, "copilots" are generally fully capable of flying the aircraft and have the exact same capabilities.
If you are irked about the 'autopilot' moniker, then ditch aviation terminology entirely.
Ask a normal person what they think autopilot does and they'll say "the plane flys by itself". Using that for cars becomes "the car drives itself". Same for copilot, most people probably think they're there to help the pilot.
1. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/history/automotive-hist...
It's wasn't a 'whoopsie daisies we goofed up'.
It was a cynical play for market share.
I agree with this fully, although the reality now is if Tesla used this name Ford might sue them.
An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft, marine craft or spacecraft without requiring constant manual control by a human operator. Autopilot does not replace human operators. Instead, autopilot assists the operator's control of the vehicle, allowing the operator to focus on broader aspects of operations (for example, monitoring the trajectory, weather and on-board systems) [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot
They still don’t know if full self-driving is even possible at the required level of reliability with their current hardware suite. They could well be wrong and sitting on a scandal that will eclipse Theranos.
>The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates.
Summon: your parked car will come find you anywhere in a parking lot. Really. - https://www.tesla.com/model3/design
Tesla will be able to make its vehicles completely autonomous by the end of this year, founder Elon Musk has said. - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53349313
Deleted Comment
And it won't come close to Theranos. Tesla makes real products that are class-leading. Even if Tesla can't reach level 5, it will be damn close and make driving 10-100x safer than just a human.
You and I have no idea whether it’s possible to get close to level 5 with their currently shipping hardware. Neither do they. And this stuff about being 10-100x safer than a human is pure fantasy right now. The industry is incredibly far away from that and there’s no evidence to suggest Tesla is years ahead of other teams working on the problem.
Elon regularly states that the chief blocker for Tesla is regulatory approval. Meanwhile Teslas still drive straight into overturned trucks.
Class-leading in what sense(s)?
Even if Tesla can't reach level 5, it will be damn close
But that's the problem with self-driving cars. Damn close isn't good enough. A miss is as good as a mile.
The problem with the self-driving/automation scale is that anything around levels 2-4 probably shouldn't be allowed on public roads, at least not yet.
Basic driver aids, where the driver is always fully engaged but the system can help to avoid mistakes, are proven to improve safety. This is what you get at level 1, and such technologies are already widespread in the industry.
If we can ever make a fully autonomous vehicle that can genuinely cope with any driving conditions, so you don't need any driver or controls in the vehicle any more, then obviously this has the potential to beat human drivers. This is level 5. But we don't know how to do this yet, and I have seen absolutely no evidence so far that anyone will know how to do it any time soon either.
In between, we have several variations where a human driver is required for some of the monitoring and control of the vehicle but not all. This has some horrible safety implications, particularly around the transitions between human- and vehicle-controlled modes of operation, and around creating a false sense of security for the human driver. The legal small print will probably say that they must remain fully alert and able to take over immediately at any time, but whether it is within human capability to actually do that effectively is an entirely different question.
and make driving 10-100x safer than just a human.
I've been driving for more than 25 years, and racked up hundreds of thousands of miles behind the wheel. I've never caused an accident, as far as I'm aware. I've never had a ticket. I try to be courteous to my fellow road users and give a comfortable ride to any passengers I have with me. What, in your opinion, would driving 10-100x safer than mine look like?
Humans certainly aren't perfect drivers and we have plenty of variation in ability. Things can go wrong, and I'm sure we'd all be happy to see fewer tragedies on our roads. But given the vast amounts of travel we undertake and how many of us do drive, autonomous vehicles will need an extremely good record -- far better than they have so far -- to justify the sort of claim you're making here.
Dead Comment
Fully autonomous driving won't be here for _at least_ half a decade so this judgement makes complete sense. Tesla was engaged in flase advertising.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53349313
This is so ridiculous. Of course the basic functionality is easy. The whole point of having intelligent drivers is dealing with the edge cases.
Deleted Comment
https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now...
Tesla vehicles cannot operate fully autonomous as-of now. Tesla has no idea if they'll need to replace or upgrade hardware either. They simply have not solved the problem yet, but want everyone to buy into the hype. And, the hype machine is working, unfortunately.
I love my car but the FSD debacle is embarassing. A lot of people are finding out that they'll never get anywhere near $8K value from their pre-purchase, and they bought a license that expires when they sell the car. I expect a class action lawsuit eventually (I'm surprised it hasn't happened already).
They have upgraded the hardware 3 times already.
Maybe the hardware in the last generation of Tesla's suffices, but right now, nobody knows.
But I have to admit, marketing wise he is a genius.
Tesla is absolutely willing to take responsibility. You'll have to use Tesla as your car insurance provider, but it'll be cheaper than anyone else's insurance so that's fine.
Why would it be cheaper? Because they're insuring a driver that never gets angry, never gets distracted, doesn't drink and has high resolution dash cams pointing in every direction and capturing every moment. Even as the software is imperfect, it's going to have so many fewer accidents that the statistical risk of insuring the entire fleet is going to be minuscule compared to random humans.
Just selling cars alone does not justify Tesla’s current valuation (how could it? Making cars is a notoriously tricky and oftentimes unprofitable business).
Autopilot almost certainly gave them press and coverage that has helped sell cars and keep the company from collapsing.
If a future promise is what it took to drive the battery revolution, it was a reasonable cost.
I know now I not only need to keep my hands on the wheel but I need to actively make sure the car doesn’t kill us. And I know the car warned me the feature required awareness, but its name made me think it was way more developed and safe than it actually is, and that disconnect will surely cause other drivers to trust it more than they should.
I'm sure there are many of drivers who keep their full attention on the road, but in general humans are bad at focusing on tedious things that they don't feel are necessary.
Same experience here. Why people say this is relaxing; and takes the stress away from long distance driving is beyond me...
However, the speed-adaptive cruise control is the best I've ever experienced. It maintains the set speed exactly, slows down for corners automatically, and follows the car in front as if there was a steel rod connecting the two vehicles.
Using the cruise control in the Tesla was some of the most relaxing long-distance driving I've ever done in my life...
Advertising regulators aren't able to regulate, or arre taking too long to regulate, and we're leaving this to platforms.
When it should be done by a regulator, and fines should be applied to both the advertiser and the media owner - BECAUSE YES, media owners/platforms have the responsibility and should abide by law. I'm looking at Google/Facebook.
If platforms can't do it, too bad on them, pay up.
False advertising is alive and well, and it's encouraged. People are being defrauded and we're whistling.
Dead Comment
1. have you watched this entire technical presentation made by Andrej Karpathy, Senior Director of AI at Tesla? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx7BXih7zx8
2. if you understand what you've seen in that video, why do you think Tesla will fail?
The issue is the vast, vast gap between the current capability of Autopilot vs. what it is marketed as, and how this false advertising can literally kill the average consumer.
Actually, it is precisely the issue at hand:
From the ruling:
> The Munich court agreed with the industry body’s assessment and banned Tesla Germany from including “full potential for autonomous driving”.... in its German advertising materials.
So Tesla are not allowed to advertise that it has the potential to do it in the future.
Right now, 99% reasonable self-driving doesn't bother me because I am always in control, and I already know where the car is going to mess up and get ready to take control ahead of time. It works, and it works really well.
But the different between 100% and the 99% is all the difference that matters, and it's colossal.
I hope they can figure this out, but I don't know how. I hope they do.
2. Some company will succeed at L5 FSD, eventually. Just because it can be done does not mean that Tesla will do it. Tesla has been selling Vaporware for a decade, and they are investing a lot of resources in trying to get FSD to work with the hardware they sold customers 5 years ago to save face, while right now we don't know, and many do not believe, that such hardware suffices. Companies that have not tied themselves to such promises are much more flexible from a technology point-of-view to make quicker progress.
For all we know, next year somebody could ship a smaller, better, and cheaper lidar systems, that might give every manufacturer willing to use them a huge advantage over Tesla. Tesla would be in a very tight spot to incorporate such technology into their existing customer base.
I don't think we will see L5 in the next 10-20 years and a lot of things can happen in such a time-frame technology wise.
I followed all those failures at SpaceX before they landed the first booster, or the Model 3 intro, or fairing catches, or the original Model S. These things all took a lot longer than you'd expect from his comments, but they all happened!
(Want to keep in touch about this bet? I'm maxharris9 on twitter.)