The issue isn't autopilot at all—it's all still the driver. In this case the autopilot prevented his death, even if you may root for it.
When people hear autopilot, they think of planes where autopilot means you can literally not be in the cockpit for 10 minutes and still be fine. That leads to Tesla drivers making unwise decisions - like drunk driving - with the assumption that their car can handle itself on its own.
People will always fall for false claims which is why misleading advertising is illegal. How Tesla still manages to do it without being able to provide evidence to support the claims is beyond me. Probably some legal loophole.
P.S. Although the wording was slightly changed, Tesla still insists their cars have fully self driving capabilities on www.tesla.com/autopilot. A claim that’s obviously not supported as of yet.
No they don't. They say they have the hardware for it, but the functionality will only become available once it passes software validation and regulatory approval.
>Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars
As a massive headline and
> 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.
As the rest of what I see on one screen- means that it's self driving and safer than a human.
More from the page
> Full Self-Driving Capability
And only towards the end does it say
> Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available
Which even then isn't clear if it's self driving or not yet.
Frankly, if you sell me something you say is capable of full self driving, I expect it to be able to do that. I'm sure they're technically correct but I think they're wildly misleading.
> if you sell me something you say is capable of full self driving
As I pointed out, they haven't said that. They've said it's got the hardware needed for it.
Compare:
This iPhone is capable of 16-way FaceTime calls.
…to:
This iPhone has the hardware necessary for 16-way FaceTime calls.
When iOS 12 was released, one was true but the other wasn't. It wasn't until Apple released iOS 12.1 that iPhones were capable of making 16-way FaceTime calls.
Hardware support is necessary but not sufficient. What Tesla are saying on that page is that when you buy the car, you've got all the hardware needed, but the software that is needed is yet to come, at an uncertain future date.
Right now, Tesla are saying that you've got all the hardware, you just need the software, and the software isn't ready yet. This isn't at all the same thing as saying that the car has this capability right now. Those are two quite distinct claims and I think that page is clear on saying the former not the latter.
If you're saying that Tesla claiming hardware support is tantamount to claiming full functionality, then how do you suggest they describe the situation? Do you think they should be banned from mentioning the hardware support? Does this apply to other manufacturers like Apple as well?
Less dishonestly.
Your entire argument boils down to "people should be expected to parse Tesla's (intentionally, I might add) obfuscated language". There's a very good reason why the language used in marketing is regulated in just about every country on the planet.
No, my argument is as follows:
1. It is reasonable for Tesla to distinguish between having hardware capability and actual functionality.
2. It's necessary for them to make this distinction in order to offer the hardware upgrades for pre-sale.
3. Other vendors do this without people complaining.
Do you disagree with any of those?
It's completely irrelevant whether or not it's reasonable for Tesla to distinguish between having hardware capability and actual functionality, the way they are describing it is demonstrably and indisputably leading consumers to believe their cars are actively capable of full self-driving, which is absolutely not the case.
Tesla are misleading consumers, their intention is thoroughly irrelevant.
I understand that, but I get the impression that no way of saying it will satisfy you. This is why I asked how you think they should describe it. This is why I asked if you actually disagree with any of those points. Do you?
> the way they are describing it is demonstrably and indisputably leading consumers to believe their cars are actively capable of full self-driving
Is it? I mean, there's obviously going to be idiot outliers for any product. A drunk person using awful judgement does not qualify as "demonstrably and indisputably" in my view. Has anybody actually demonstrated this is actually misleading to the average person?
Well, the people at Tesla who assumed a Vulcan like understanding of their marketing language from buyers are either malicious marketeers or idiots themselves.
No, it's not. Not in any way that can be misconstrued, and not in marketing copy for existing products, for which the "hardware capability" alone means shit.
In fact, the very distinction is BS. Either the car can autopilot or not. Whether the hardware can but needs the software which is not available is of interest to noone.
It might even be totally wrong as a claim too (e.g. if the software is eventually finalized they might very well discover it actually needs some more sensors to be safe, which means the hardware wasn't ready actually).
>It's necessary for them to make this distinction in order to offer the hardware upgrades for pre-sale.
They shouldn't be preseling updates of hardware that supports something for which they don't have the software yet.
>3. Other vendors do this without people complaining.
No excuse, if they do those other vendors are bad actors too.
Tesla says “Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars”. The implication is clearly that the cars are perfectly capable of fully self driving. Hence the misleading advertisement.
The claim is not substantiated in any way. Simply the assumption that technically a few cameras, sensors, and a not very powerful processing unit are enough to enable FSD. To this point there is no actual evidence that the statement is true.
My phone has all the hardware needed to crack any non quantum encryption. Also to solve the teleportation problem, world hunger, and is able to cut any cake in perfectly equal slices. It just needs the right software and perhaps infinite retries.
All Tesla has to do is provide in eqully large typeface and placement evidence that the HW indeed can do it but not at this time. And in case you’re wondering yes, all manufacturers should advertise clearly what the product can and cannot do, and when. Whataboutism is not an argument that the problem isn’t there, just that we should ignore it because that other guy does it.
[1] Proof only available under certain conditions and subject to local regulatory approval.
What they have said explicitly is that they cars are not capable of fully self driving until the software and regulatory approvals are ready. Explicit trumps whatever you think is implicit.
A Tesla car is not just hardware. It's software as well. You are equating claims that are explicitly about the hardware as if they are about the car as a whole, when the page in question clearly makes the distinction between them.
How do you suggest they describe the situation? Do you think they should be banned from mentioning the hardware support?
> Whataboutism is not an argument that the problem isn’t thee, just that we should ignore it because that other guy does it.
So do you think that Apple were wrong to talk about 16-way FaceTime before iOS 12.1 was released? If this is so unreasonable, why didn't anybody complain that Apple were lying about iPhone functionality?
My argument is not that we should ignore wrongdoing because other people do it. My argument is that the reason people do ignore it for other vendors is because it's not wrongdoing.
Are you telling me I’m wrong or what I say is false and misleading, against all you’ve stated in your comments so far (that there’s no wrongdoing in making unsubstantiated claims)?
That's what every scamster who puts 100pt text "This product does X" and them tells in 7pt fine print "fat chance you'll see it doing X" would say.
For one, the "software" might never be ready, it's a hard problem. What timeline they have? What are their guarantees they'll get it? How do they know if the "full self-driving" problem is solved eventually in software, it won't require extra hardware (sensors and such) to operate?
They don't, they just depend on idiots buying their cars thinking a) the autopilot is here, b) the autopilot is near, it's just a matter of shipping the software which they'll release soon.
Should they have been able to make the same claim about the iPhone 4? I mean, it's got the theoretically necessary camera and audio hardware, if you overlook minor details like Apple not actually introducing 16 way calls until that device was basically obsolete, and then not in a software update that would actually run on it.
Even then it's fairly clear doing the 16 way call wasn't a fundamental challenge for Apple and they did it fairly short order. Things are not so cut and dry with self driving technology.
It is quite clear from the marketing material that Tesla knows that average people don't understand plane Autopilot. And the name gives people illusion of more capability than for real and at the same time allows them to point that plane autopilot is fairly limited so they are not misleading people.
Their original language was way worse and it is clear from the changes they are trying to make sure they can point out to the fine print to say we didn't really say it can self drive.
Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval.
This is clearly meant to suggest to the unsuspecting customer that they have the whole thing ready and just waiting for pesky regulatory approvals. This is beyond shameful specially when they are doing this literally for years.
However, I think you're making two mistakes. One, I think to most people they absolutely are making that claim. Two, as I say they may technically be the accurate claims but they're extremely misleading and designed to hide the fact that the cars do not have this ability right now in a usable form.
> They aren't saying the car has that capability.
They have this as a headline: "Full Self-Driving Capability". Under it it says "Build upon Enhanced Autopilot and order Full Self-Driving Capability on your Tesla." I am not cutting sentences in half or anything, they very explicitly say that I can order full self-driving capability on my tesla.
So I can order full self driving capability on a Tesla. They say I can buy a car with that capability. They say parts of it may not be available, depending where I am (though I'm on a country specific page where they know full well that it is not usable).
One of the first things on the page is a video showing self driving!
I feel if I list a series of functionalities on a product I'm selling then say "We can't say exactly when each of these will be available in your area" while I know that definitely none of them are available then I am being either misleading or completely dishonest.
> When iOS 12 was released, one was true but the other wasn't. It wasn't until Apple released iOS 12.1 that iPhones were capable of making 16-way FaceTime calls.
And I'd say they were dishonest if they had headlines of "16 way FaceTime call capability" under which it says "Order the 16 way capable version today!"
> If you're saying that Tesla claiming hardware support is tantamount to claiming full functionality, then how do you suggest they describe the situation?
Quite simple - make it extremely obvious that it's not yet available. Say "Future self driving capabilities". Make it clear that it may never be usable where you live. Maybe have a clear note on the video that the car you buy won't do that when you get it.
As a side, I do not understand their claim either - they say all cars produced have the necessary hardware but then later say it's my choice to order as an extra because the basic version doesn't have it.
Maybe they are to blame. But for practical reason, I don't care much. I interpret Tesla's communication as highly misleading, for the very simple reasons that it could be written in a waaaaay less misleading way, and also because there is absolutely no consensus in the field that their "hardware" will actually be capable one day to fully self drive.
Plus asking the users to distinguish between hardware and (vapor) software is disingenuous and misleading.
Sounds like a problem with people.
Blame, whether or legal or moral, isn't zero (or fixed) sum; greater blameworthiness for one party need not be offset by lesser for another.
The liability of an accessory to a crime, for instance, doesn't reduce the liability of principals in that crime.
autopilot is not a real autopilot, in this case marketing names thing as they want since there are not laws what you can call autopilot
The "autopilot" is designed to stop if something happens with the driver not to continue driving, so it OBVIOUS something went very wrong and we don't need to debate that the autopilot saved his life, it could as well killed many other people.
I'm a bit curious what you think a real autopilot is and how it works. Do you imagine a bunch of planes flying around with pilots asleep or away from the cockpit?
I think autopilot is probably a surprisingly appropriate and accurate name, but most people don't have any real idea what it means so we see a lot of surprising assumptions being brought to bear.
I do not understand the point of trying to change the meaning of autopilot to mean lane keeping, or car chasing but with 100% attention still needed, then how will you name the real autopilot ?
In the article it mentioned that a drunk guy said it is OK to drive drunk because of autopilot , do you think he would also be confused if marketing would have been more honest/modest ?
Again, I ask you what you think an autopilot function in a plane does?
> do you think he would also be confused if marketing would have been more honest/modest ?
I'm merely noting that you said "autopilot is not a real autopilot", and I think that name is actually accurate, but unfortunately the public has a skewed perception of what autopilot means. Specifically, you can read the first paragraph of Wikipedia's entry for it[1] and it should be fairly clear where the public understanding (and possibly your interpretation) of what autopilot is and what it is and is meant for in reality. To cut to the chase, since you seem to have ignored most my hints to look into how autopilot works, it does not automate every portion of flying a place, but just allows pilots to focus on other aspects of operating the craft. A pilots should not ignore the operation of the plane just because of autopilot any more than a driver should ignore operation of a vehicle with some driving assist technology. In both cases, they are assistive technologies, not replacement for drivers.
If you want to make some case about what Tesla specifically said in addition to the naming, feel free to do so, but I'm not interested in arguing that. It wasn't what you initially argued, and it wasn't why I replied (I'm not interested in defending Tesla, just pointing out the naming may not be quite as bad as you think).