I contend that while that's true, it's not something your typical consumer is aware of. There is a common misconception that modern airline pilots simply press a button then kick back as the plane takes off, flies and land itself.
> Audi development engineer Thomas Müller and his team sent “Lu Ban” and “Kong Ming”, two piloted Audi A7 Sportback prototypes, on a very special kind of test drive.
This is a very far cry from what Tesla and Musk are doing. For starters you can't even buy the car yet. If you look for information on "Audi Piloted Driving" [2] you can see they're just as cautious as you'd imagine a German company to be:
> In 2017 Audi will introduce what’s expected to the world’s first to-market Level 3 automated driving system with “Traffic Jam Pilot” in the next generation Audi A8. The system will give drivers the option to travel hands-free up to 35 mph, when certain conditions are met prior to enabling this feature — for instance, the vehicle will ensure it is on a limited-access, divided highway.
Note that it will only work on highways, but also only at non-highway speeds. Stop and go traffic.
> In 2020-2021, Audi will introduce a Level 4 “Highway Pilot” feature—technology similar to what has been demonstrated in our concept vehicle “Jack”—that offers hands-free driving at posted limited access highway speeds in which the vehicle can execute lane changes and pass cars independently.
Seems pretty cautious to me.
[1] https://www.audi.com/en/innovation/piloteddriving/piloted_dr...
Tesla is outlier mostly in the disproportionate amount of flak it takes.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20160801/RETAIL03/308019956/...
This is just like Fox "some people say" - Fox people say! Or Javascript Bitcoin miners - Monero is not Bitcoin! It's snowing so there is no global warming - It is "climate change" but the entire globe is warming! This hurricane is just weather, not climate change - it is the 10th 1 in 500 year hurricane we have had this month!
I could go on. Sure, talking about the future self driving features (and selling them) is poor form to avoid this from Tesla, so they aren't helping - but they have always been clear that it is not self driving. It is the listeners/ readers that are incorrectly connecting the dots.
They should also retrain their sales staff because on my test drive the saleswoman specifically told me the car could drive itself and that I should take my hands off the wheel to test it out.
They should also retrain their CEO who keeps talking about "self driving" in reference to existing cars:
https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now...
> "All Tesla Cars Being Produced Now Have Full Self-Driving Hardware"
Auto pilot - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot
"An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace human operators, but instead they assist them in controlling the aircraft. This allows them to focus on broader aspects of operations such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems.[1]"
You are doing the exact conflating I am referring to.
Regardless, the actual people who have gotten into an accident because of this should be proof enough that Tesla is misleading people.
You must have missed the definition of autopilot in my comment.
Tesla likes to play both sides, it is "autopilot" when it works, but when it doesn't then the driver has literally under six seconds (according to Tesla) to avert a fatal accident.
Any system that randomly needs a massive correction in under six seconds between potentially several minutes of inaction is too dangerous to be used on public roads.
I didn't sign Tesla's little disclaimer, I shouldn't have to share roads with people beta testing dangerous software.
This is what gets me the most. Right after a tragedy Tesla is always quick to put out a victim blaming PR piece claiming that it's all the driver's fault and that they had i.e. "6 seconds" where they could see the divider yet they never publish anything like how long they had between when the car left the lane and the collision. Sure it was 6 seconds where they could see the barrier but how long was it between when autopilot went into casual murder mode and when it hit the barrier?
We've all seen videos like this one https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopil... where autopilot swerves towards an obstacle and the driver only has a split second to react or be the next fatality. I think it's about time that Tesla acknowledges that their sensor platform is fundamentally dangerous. They never should have made such huge promises without lidar of any form. They aren't just going to be able to magically fix this with a software update.
http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1026435
Autoland has been around for more than 80 years and been used commercially for 60 of those.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland.
It's pretty obvious what Tesla is getting at when they are advertising "every car sold with self-driving hardware".
The asterisk is of course that the hardware is self-driving capable, but the software isn't. But it's not hard to see where people are getting that idea from - it's Tesla's advertising and sales material.
"Your Tesla will match speed to traffic conditions, keep within a lane, automatically change lanes without requiring driver input, transition from one freeway to another, exit the freeway when your destination is near, self-park when near a parking spot and be summoned to and from your garage.
Tesla’s Enhanced Autopilot software has begun rolling out and features will continue to be introduced as validation is completed, subject to regulatory approval. Every driver is responsible for remaining alert and active when using Autopilot, and must be prepared to take action at any time."
You have to go way down to "Enhanced Autopilot" section to read the smaller text that mentions that its subject to regulatory approval, and that the driver is responsible.
If you don't think that's misleading advertising, I don't know what is.
I will admit showing a video of full hands off video, not on a highway, underneath a statement about the hardware, showing off software being used in a way that is not recommended in the manual is bad.
As I stated before in my first comment, they shouldn't be selling "self driving" that isn't available. I see no issue with promoting the hardware though and selling future proofing.
But a company that advertises software against JavaScript-Bitcoin-miners knows exactly that people will think their software helps against JavaScript-Monero-miners.
If it's a reasonable company, they'll try to deal with this public misunderstanding and point out that their software can't help with Monero-miners.
If it's an asshole company, they'll cash in on people mistakenly buying their software. And even worse, those people will then think they're safe when they're not.
Such an asshole company deserves all of the negative PR, so that they're hopefully at some point forced to change their business practices.
People just lump all crypto together because of ignorance. As is the case here. Autopilot is not fully self-driving.
Those people being Tesla's marketing team, presumably.
> they have always been clear that it is not self driving
That is very far away from the truth.
> what I say is always what I mean, and if you misunderstand, it's your fault.
Linguistic pragmatics 101: communication is a two way street.
(If we saw a commenter calling another a smug pedant, of course we'd tell them not to. I didn't see it though.)
Being called a rude name is bad (though I think the commenter edited it out?), but like every user here, you still need to follow the rules regardless of what someone else does.
The core issue is the flamewar thing—by which I mean high-quantity, low-quality controversies—which is the essence of what we're asking people to avoid in comment threads.