Hacker News Reader

Comment by NickM | Hacker News Reader

I think they're trying to hammer home the point that autopilot is very much not level 5 self-driving. The media is constantly referring to "self-driving" Teslas, so of course it's easy for members of the public to get confused, but this is very different from e.g. the Uber self-driving fatality that occurred recently, where the car was supposed to be able to drive 100% autonomously. Tesla is extremely clear that these are only driver assistance features, but people keep getting confused about it, so they keep doubling down on their message.

View on HN

> Tesla is extremely clear that these are only driver assistance features

Promoting the system with the name 'Autopilot' is, to my mind, quite a bit less than extremely clear communication. This name provides Tesla's critics with a constant line of attack, which will continue right up until they reach level 5. I consider myself a hardcore Tesla fan but I think they've botched their messaging, and this latest statement isn't helping.

> ... but people keep getting confused about it, so they keep doubling down on their message.

Well, that's exactly the problem, isn't it: people keep getting confused. If your message isn't getting through, instead of just yelling it louder you could try eliminating all ambiguity, for instance by changing the name. If this were marketed as simply 'adaptive cruise control with steering', nobody could claim they were misled.

Promoting the system with the name 'Autopilot' is, to my mind, quite a bit less than extremely clear communication.

Is it, though? Autopilot has never in the history of those systems meant hands off controls, attention off driving. Pilots with their autopilots on in airplanes are still flying and watching gauges.

> Is it, though? Autopilot has never in the history of those systems meant hands off controls, attention off driving. Pilots with their autopilots on in airplanes are still flying and watching gauges.

You are correct about the history of autopilot systems in planes, but when it comes to mass communication technically correct is not necessarily the best kind of correct. I wouldn't assume most people are aware of how autopilot systems work in planes.

Edit: just to make it clear, I don't believe this accident was caused by any confusion about the name. Rather, as pointed out by others in this discussion, I think the fact that the system works great for long stretches (some say they never experienced any problems) makes it exceedingly hard for drivers to remain alert. The brain's optimization tendencies are so strong that I think systems relying on people to stay alert when the action-effect-evaluation feedback loop is broken are inherently unsafe. My point is that with suboptimal messaging, Tesla is making it harder for themselves to keep the public on their side when tragedies like this occur.

How many Tesla owners have pilot licenses and understand that subtlety?

The comparison to autopilot is a good one, I agree, but the implication is just the same: it's potentially dangerous. The aviation had to address this issue back in the 80s and 90s, noting that simply failing to properly observe gauges or other indicators contributed to 31 of 37 airline disasters in the 80s: http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/safety-s...

It remains an issue, and a very well-explored one that is extremely relevant to car automation. https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/hazards-au...

Are you really suggesting that highly educated software engineer got "confused"?

> Are you really suggesting that highly educated software engineer got "confused"?

No, not at all; the discussion I was responding to was specifically about Tesla's messaging (see my other comments at [1] and [2]).

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16815827

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16815563

> Tesla is extremely clear

Oct'16 video on https://www.tesla.com/autopilot says Driver is only there for legal reasons

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/823632597284691969 " Yes, safety should improve significantly due to autonomy features, even if regs disallow no driver present 23 Jan 2017"

The system shown in that video is making autonomous turns and doing other things that the in-the-hands-of-consumers autopilot definitely can't do.

> Oct'16 video on https://www.tesla.com/autopilot says Driver is only there for legal reasons

That may come back to haunt them. For those not clicking it, the above link goes to a video showing the Autopilot in action. The white-on-black, full-screen text prefacing the demo is not doing them any favours in the debate about their messaging (all-caps are in the original):

"THE PERSON IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT IS ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS."

"HE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING. THE CAR IS DRIVING ITSELF."

Car demos are almost always "do not attempt" and violating this or that, so when they say the driver wasn't necessary for the demo I don't personally extrapolate that to say anything about real life.

> Car demos are almost always "do not attempt" and violating this or that

Ads like those explicitly include 'do not attempt' disclaimers; this video does not. The statement it does include only emphasizes how advanced the system is.

> so when they say the driver wasn't necessary for the demo I don't personally extrapolate that to say anything about real life.

You do not, but the question is how many jurors would see it the same way when a highly skilled lawyer argues that this video is misleading, as part of his efforts to hurt Tesla in a liability suit.

This isn't footage of Autopilot. It's a development build of Full Self-Driving.

That's odd. It's the only video and topmost content on a page titled Autopilot.

Yeah, there's a very fair criticism around what exactly Tesla is advertising here.

As a safety matter, I am pretty confident that nobody gets through configuration and delivery (let alone a test drive) thinking this is what their car does when they turn on Autopilot.

Jeez, that damned media again misinforming people. Who could have expected a feature called AUTOPILOT to mean self driving, who?!

Anyone who knows what an autopilot [1] is understands that it does not make an aircraft autonomous. It's an assistive device - a stabilizer for wings and pitch.

To call the Tesla Model S an "autonomous vehicle" simply because it has a feature called autopilot is disingenuous.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot

Only licensed aviators know the difference... Also in that In 1947 a US Air Force C-54 made a transatlantic flight, including takeoff and landing, completely under the control of an autopilot.

That's really cool - but just like driverless cars, it's the exception to the rule for what an autopilot system does.

> Anyone who knows what an autopilot [1] is [...]

I strongly suspect that is a small minority of buyers.

I don't know about legality, but imo there is an argument to be made that it's very unethical to feign ignorance as to what the vast majority associates "autopilot" with.

I do have a problem with some of their marketing material - which describes the car as having "Fully Self-Driving Capability." No, the Model S doesn't have the capability to drive itself fully right now, and it's unethical to lead consumers to believe it does.

But in my view, the name "autopilot" itself describes a device for pilots, providing a very similar level of partial assistance to Tesla's current feature. It is accurate. The problem arises when it's sold beyond its traditional meaning.

This fails the Reasonable Person test. Most people on the street are not aviators, and their assumption is that "autopilot = full autonomy", which is entirely understandable.

"Tesla is extremely clear that Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel. This reminder is made every single time Autopilot is engaged."

A reasonable person would not take this to mean that the car is driverless.

1. Tesla says it requires hands on wheel. 2. It has sensors to confirm this. 3. The sensors allow you a few seconds (a lot of seconds? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfvkw1TIiM4) with hands off wheels before warning you.

So, which is it, Tesla? Is hands off wheel allowed, or not allowed? If it's not allowed, why do you program your sensors to tolerate the situation?

> The sensors allow you a few seconds (a lot of seconds

It used to allow you _fifteen minutes_...

So anyone with an aviation license, gotcha. That should take care of at least 0.02% of the population.

Not to mention the fact that the marketing around it strongly encourages that interpretation (showing people driving without touching the steering wheel, etc.)

This is the part that is upsetting to me, not the name of the feature. "Fully self-driving capability" suggests that it is one hundred percent self-driving (and therefore will not require a human to drive it). That part's a lie, and a dangerous one.

Except Tesla themselves was clearly enjoying the positive press from people calling their cars self-driving up until this crash.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com