Hacker News Reader

Comment by ablekh | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand why Tesla has been and still is allowed to use the term Full Self Driving (FSD) to imply, that is advertise, something that clearly is not and will not be in the near(est) future. Where is FTC, which is supposed to protect and enforce truth in advertising in the U.S. (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advert...)? Especially considering that relevant false advertising (in terms of the naming / use of the FSD term, not the actual feature set) clearly can negatively affect the driver's judgement on manually controlling a car in various situations and, thus, ultimately, the safety of the driver and passengers.

View on HN

What blows my mind is that this promotional Tesla video[1] has been online for almost 5 years, with this claim in the video description:

> The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.

[1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware...

> The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.

I mean, they are not completely wrong. Although not perfect. FSD Beta is still pretty impressive. There's no denying that:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d9nwpjgtt4

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pfabe-gxgQ

Their video is from 2016, yours is from the last six months.

"FSD Beta," which incidentally they told CA DMV was emphatically not full self-driving[0], hasn't been around for the vast majority of time that that video has been online so using it as an excuse is disingenuous. Plus Tesla's own words in their emails disprove this anyway.

[0] https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-te...

I suggest you research who is behind the site you just linked and what their agenda is.

The videos that I linked are also from Dec 2020 and Feb 2021 respectively. Not from "from the last six months".

Here's one from 5 days ago (Mar 8, 2021): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zafOEZrKZ1c

> I suggest you research who is behind the site you just linked and what their agenda is.

I linked to a raw PDF inside a viewer containing Tesla/CA DMV's emails directly from a FOIA request-response. Are you claiming the site forged these emails?

> The videos that I linked are also from Dec 2020 and Feb 2021 respectively. Not from "from the last six months".

That's literally within the last six months..? Pointing out that they're even newer only strengthens my case that comparing them to a 2016 video is disingenuous.

You should re-read the comment you are responding to. Dec 2020 and Feb 2021 and March 2021 are all “from [within] the last six months”. I added a word to make it more clear, but it was obvious the intent GP had.

> FSD Beta," which incidentally they told CA DMV was emphatically not full self-driving[0]

Have you read the actual definition of what constitutes as an autonomous mode/autonomous vehicles. As defined by California law?

From CA SB-1298 [1]:

38750. (a) For purposes of this division, the following definitions apply:

(1) “Autonomous technology” means technology that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator.

Autopilot and FSD Beta requires a human to supervise it. In fact, it requires you to respond to the prompts and will actually disable itself for the rest of the drive if you keep ignoring it.

Here is Tesla's response to the CA DMV's query:

"Currently neither Autopilot nor FSD Capability is an autonomous system, and currently no comprising feature, whether singularly or collectively, is autonomous or makes our vehicles autonomous."

From what I can interpret. It doesn't fit CA DMV's own definition. Making Tesla's statement factually correct.

If you don't think that's the case. How so? I'm curious how you see it differently.

[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

I don't understand why they even attempt to push beyond even basic driver assistance. I'd buy a well built car with good battery tech and a decent cruise control and never look back. I don't mind driving for another 20 years if the car is reliable and has good enough range. Making my car clever is so far down on my car wishlist it's not even visible. The elephant in the room is that even if there are technological breakthroughs shortenig "FSD" from perhaps my pessismistic guess of 50 years to an almost laghably optimistic 20 years, the legal mess it will be stuck in will be at least as long as the technical one was. Tesla seem to make very competitive cars even without wasting money on self-driving ones. I'd try to keep that spot instead of risking it by going down the FSD rabbit hole.

They already make that? FSD is an optional upgrade.

While I would agree the FSD path is a dangerous one, if they crack it they also instantly justify their share price.

I’m thinking they must be using a nontrivial fraction of their budget to develop self-driving tech. Money that could be used for advancing the advantage they already have. I think the fruitless pursuit of self driving will be what makes boring cars from traditional manufacturers catch up. Assuming no manufacturer reaches true full FSD within say 25-50 years, and the usable returns of such research diminishes, then the winning play would be spending as little as possible on it.

It's not obvious that Tesla's FSD program will fail. If it succeeds, the investment will have done exactly what you describe - advancing the advantage Tesla already has.

Yep, and they appear to be doing it for less money than their competitors too.

There's a strong tendency in the tech world - and elsewhere but less so - to point to failures as an absolute proof something won't work, and to similarly use early successes as overly strong signals of viability.

An example of this would be the "obvious" superiority of micro-kernel OS designs compared to monoliths. Which is not at all how things actually panned out with Linux - but the problem was never about the architectural choice, it was about the fact that OS designs are hard - and you need to do the work to solve all the little problems which crop up with your big idea.

FSD is essentially going through the same thing, but the stakes are higher - FSD can kill people as a basic part of its function. We were always in a countdown till we started getting the first self-driving casualties.

This is not of course to suggest that what Tesla is doing right now is okay, but I'd sure be cautious trying to read the winner of the next 20 years into it.

Tesla and SpaceX both take huge gambles on innovation. Thats kindof the point of both companies existence. Yes the FSD initiative could fail in many ways. Starship might be a dead end. Innovation is a gamble.

I don’t think they’re very bottlenecked by available money at this point.

Tesla doesn’t care what you (the individual) want. They care about increasing the size of their addressable market (elderly folks who can’t drive don’t buy cars - but they might if the cars could drive themselves). They care about driving up the average transaction price (not everyone spends every penny they can on their car - but they might if they could sleep in it while commuting/roadtripping). They care about creating recurring revenue sources. Once you buy a traditional car that’s that. But if your car gets rented out as a robotaxi on Tesla’s network, then Tesla gets a cut.

I agree though. At the moment I’d rather just have a solid car with good adaptive cruise control.

> They care about increasing the size of their addressable market (elderly folks who can’t drive don’t buy cars - but they might if the cars could drive themselves).

How many elderly folks care about sub 4 second 0-60s times?

That's 4s could mean much safer highway merging. Especially from those on-ramps with stop light to control merge flow.

Do you honestly see the elderly population foot to the floor for sub 4s highway merging?

> I don't understand why they even attempt to push beyond even basic driver assistance.

Well, this is, actually, quite understandable. Tesla and many investors in the company, especially Cathy Wood and her ARK Invest, assume high correlation between Tesla's future success or even survival with the success of the company's autonomous driving strategy, which, they argue, could win the lion's share of the global robo-taxi, robo-delivery and ride-hailing markets (with selling a relevant subscription service to future owners of FSD-enabled Tesla vehicles being IMO a secondary and insignificant revenue stream). This can be easily illustrated by reviewing some of the relevant ARK's open research materials[1-4]. Elsewhere on the Internet, a notable coverage of FSD that I'm aware of (though I haven't yet had a chance to review) is provided by Tesla investor and popular YouTube blogger Dave Lee, who offers multiple - as of today, I've counted five of them - detailed video interviews on Tesla's FSD on his YouTube channel "Dave Lee on Investing"[5].

[1] https://ark-invest.com/articles/analyst-research/tesla-ride-...

[2] https://ark-invest.com/articles/analyst-research/ride-hailin...

[3] https://ark-invest.com/articles/analyst-research/autonomous-...

[4] https://ark-invest.com/articles/analyst-research/tesla-price...

[5] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi2G5aQTN0YwGIfnt1u7Nbg

> assume high correlation between Tesla's future success or even survival with the success of the company's autonomous driving strategy, which, they argue, could win the lion's share of the global robo-taxi, robo-delivery and ride-hailing markets

Except Waymo has better tech, is working toward a similar goal, and has a stronger balance sheet. Google has a history of dropping the ball on opportunities, but unlike cloud computing, they're already a leader in this space.

People want Tesla to succeed and like the company's story, but it basically requires every other automaker to fail in order to justify its valuation. Or Bitcoin to hit $500k.

I agree with you on major points. Tesla proponents' ignorance of competition (both technical and general / market share) is difficult to comprehend. Re: Bitcoin - I disagree, it is a totally different story, but it's off-topic / outside of the scope here.

Tesla did buy 1.5B$ bitcoins, so ..

You're right, see my comment above.

I believe the comment refers to the fact that Tesla bought a lot of bitcoins. So for their current valuation to make sense, either they have to succeed in monopolizing the auto market, or their bitcoins have to go up a lot in value.

You're right. I somehow misinterpreted that part of the comment. Having said that, I doubt that Tesla's Bitcoin investment could be a foundation for its current valuation (as of today, > $660B). The $500K BTC price implies ~10x growth, so the value of that $1.5B investment would equal to ~$15B, which is still far less than the target number.

BTC is within 10x of $500k, so you’re right, it doesn’t make sense.

Thank you. Fixed my math.

It doesn’t make sense, though, their 1.5B investment would go up to maybe $15-20B.

Another alternative is that they use success in ramping up the car business to raise capital for investment in other on shore advanced manufacturing. The market they go for may not just be cars.

Probably because of the small print/legalese.

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.

I understand it. That is why I have emphasized above ("in terms of the naming / use of the FSD term, not the actual feature set") that, regardless of the small print / legalese / disclaimers / clarifications etc., I believe that using confusing and not matching current capabilities terms should not be allowed. I might be wrong (as I'm not a lawyer), but I think that it is well within FTC's jurisdiction and power to enforce both truthfulness and clarity of advertising in the U.S.

I wonder if they could try to switch to something like "Fully-assisted Self Driving" to keep the original FSD accronym, if the term ends up being regulated.

Use of an acronym requires a prior use of a relevant definition (spell out), which is the term. The expression "Fully-assisted Self Driving" is no less incorrect / ambiguous than the original one. Therefore, Tesla would continue violating the same principle of truth and clarity in advertising as well as, perhaps, some policies and/or laws.

Not to mention the Term “Full Self Driving” was originally created to disambiguate “self driving”, which may still require driver assistance. FSD was sold as a robotaxi software that could make you money while you sleep, while it has always been nothing more than a level 2 system, as Tesla admits in the fine print and to regulators. Musk on Twitter contradicts this consistently.

FSD also mentioned/implied that driver assistance could be required, but did mention/omply that it should be good enough for someone to take a trip without intervention. Practically speaking it's just a larger feature set than EAP/AP.

Edit - Here's a link to the old FSD fine print. They say the system is designed to take trips with no input from the driver, but they don't guarantee that, which to implies FSD is just meant to be good level 2 driver assistance.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180806143159/https://www.tesla...

To be fair, Tesla could consider stuff like TACC to be level 3+ (no beta status, no disclaimer about always paying attention, etc), but it's definitely not level 4 because they require driver input and nag then disable without it.

The robotaxi/Tesla network idea was separate from EAP/AP and FSD and was only mentioned on the Tesla website for a short period of time with even more fine print/legalese (it was pie in the sky, which I imagine is why they took it down).

To be clear I mean the term “Full Self Driving” as opposed to the product Tesla is selling.

That doesn't matter. You don't get claim something which is clearly false in commonsensical interpretation, but get away with it because the fine print.

You can't say "the sky is green[1]" and then in footnote [1] say "by green, we mean blue." That's not allowed, and the FTC is supposed to prosecute this. You can say "the sky is cerulean[1]" and then note that although cerulean can be categorized as either green or blue, in this context you mean blue. But calling the feature "full self driving" when it is not full self driving is more akin to outright calling the sky green.

Someone can successfully sue Subway for advertising a footlong sub that isn't always 12"...but Tesla and FSD...slapping fine print lets them off the hook...

That lawsuit wasn't successful, partially because Subway's use of the term "footlong" is not supposed to be taken as literally a foot long.

I invite anyone who is interested in learning about the arguments, as I was, to check out this article:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2016/02/29/why-the-...

I’m shocked they even settled. Probably they felt it was the cheapest action, but such a lawsuit feels quite predatory. An important legal concept is harms done, and as this Forbes article points out, there really weren’t any material harms done.

Now Tesla on the other hand, absolutely falls into the realm of material harms done…

The settlement was later thrown out I think, I have no idea why they agreed to it either https://www.reuters.com/article/us-subway-decision-footlong-...

Wow I knew they settled and to me that's "successful".

I didn't realize the settlement was thrown out...or that a settlement can even be thrown out!

I also have no idea who appeals it to get a settlement reviewed.

What? Of course it is! That's why the bread is almost exactly a foot.

It's not supposed to be precise down to the millimeter, but it's quite literal.

No, it is the name of Subway's trademark(pending?) sandwich. Logic has no place in this conversation.

Are you telling me it's a coincidence or are you doing a bit?

If you're making fun of the idea, I still don't get it, because it's not like subway was trying to make them not be 12 inches.

I am accurately describing Subway's legal position when challenged on the length of their footlong sandwiches. A legalese definition of footlong.

It's blatantly not Subway's actual position, though.

When did they make that claim, since it's not in either of the linked articles as far as I can tell?

https://nypost.com/2013/01/19/subway-explains-shortness-of-t...

A facebook post. I see.

And that was immediately followed up by a sentence talking very reasonably about slight loaf-to-loaf variation, which is the real argument being made there and elsewhere and in court.

The actual lawsuit never went to court, they settled and then the settlement was overturned, and my claim was just that this definition was part of the reason the suit didn't work. What more are you expecting out of this?

A judge ruled on it, so there were definitely things being said in court.

> What more are you expecting out of this?

I expect that "legal position" means something put out by a lawyer, not a facebook post.

I expect that the actions the company takes and the things their lawyers say take precedence over a facebook post.

I expect that if it's presented as an important reason subway gives then it shouldn't be taken out of context.

>judge ruled on it, so there were definitely things being said in court

The judge ruled on the settlement, nor the actual merits of the case.

I only called it their legal argument as you did not understand what I was saying, I probably could have worded that better. It was their stated position on the issue, and is very similar to the "fully self driving" being discussed.

I am done with this, if you want to think I oversold Subway's claim, I disagree but fine.

> It was their stated position on the issue, and is very similar to the "fully self driving" being discussed.

I think if people were pulling "fully self driving" out of some random facebook post that discusses the capabilities in the next sentence, then the complaint would be something to sigh at and ignore.

They're labeled as 6" and 12" on the menu. What does 12" mean if not twelve inches?

Judging by their website, the menu labels them "six inch" and "footlong."

This is the menu I remember seeing in person: http://subwayniagara.com/images/2017-NOV-MENU-SIGNATURE.jpg

I'm unsure if that's Canadian labeling requirements or that local stores choice, but I checked their US official online menu before my reply.

Oof yeah. I really like what’s Tesla is doing. I love my model y, but I definitely skipped out on “$10k more for FSD.” It’s just not there yet.

Do I think people need to step in and force Tesla to dial back their advertisement, eh... idk, maybe, maybe yes?

To me, it’s pretty clear what “FSD” gets you these days (spoilers: not a lot). I suspect the average Tesla customer can also read. I also think reckless drivers will be reckless regardless of law or guidelines.

I think the increasing price for “FSD” and calling it fsd is all marketing designed to get people to FOMO into it (knowing that it might take a while).

What I would like to know is, if I pay “10k for FSD Someday” will this be applied to a future Tesla I buy that will actually be capable of FSD?

It’s not transferable to a new car, FYI. Also, the FSD beta is supposedly opening imminently to almost everyone who’s bought the package and wants to try it.

Indeed wasn't Germany the first to stop them from pulling this shit? We in the US allow our advertisers to lie to us about any- and everything, and they wonder why we hate advertising in general.

Maybe we need to stop getting mad at the method and start getting mad at the companies doing the lying.

I've said repeatedly I was ready to leave this country, but only in the last 2 years have I begun actually making plans to leave.

I'm voting with my feet, but where to go? Shouldn't take years of careful planning to just up and go somewhere else.

> I don't understand why Tesla has been and still is allowed to use the term Full Self Driving (FSD) to imply, that is advertise, something that clearly is not and will not be in the near(est) future.

Peter Thiel's support for Donald Trump, alongside the army of Musketeers, continues to pay dividends, I guess.

Tesla is not allowed to do that in Europe.[1] In the US, they got away with a lot during the Trump administration. That seems to be changing. From the NTSB statement:

"The success of these AVs depends on the driver completing a monitoring task that requires sustained attention; however, humans generally perform poorly in the role of monitor. Also, if the automated control system behaves consistently and reliably for prolonged periods, the user of that system can become complacent about its operation and may not respond appropriately when a situation requires him or her to act."

The NTSB people see this clearly because they investigate aviation accidents. Over reliance on automation is a known problem in aviation. The aviation systems are pretty good, but they are not yet good enough to be the pilot in command. Pilot training covers this in detail. Drivers are not trained that way.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/tesla-autopilot-self-driving...

That creates a strange situation where a monitor would need more training vs a driving license? Or would that require an overhaul of the training itself?

I think that's not especially strange when these partially automated systems aren't fully autonomous yet.

I would have a hard time arguing against requiring a few hours of class time learning about exactly what the systems do and what pitfalls there are because those things are not at all like what anyone has ever been taught in drivers ed before.

Yes. Again, "If the automated control system behaves consistently and reliably for prolonged periods, the user of that system can become complacent about its operation and may not respond appropriately when a situation requires him or her to act." That's what led to the accidents where a Tesla plowed into a freeway divide barrier (California), a street sweeper (China), a parked van (Germany), a fire truck (California), a semitrailer (Florida), an overturned truck (Taiwan) ...

There's a certain similarity to Tesla autopilot crashes. Everything was going just great until Tesla's automated system failed to detect a big solid obstacle. Tesla drivers need to be very aware of that failure mode.

It's amazing that Tesla is allowed to ship that. It's Musk's "we don't need LIDAR, we'll just kill people instead".

100% natural, cage-free, hormone-free self-driving.

Or as George Carlin called it: bullshit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com