They don't share the data. They don't work as promised. They charge investors up front for what is essentially vaporware. They advertise the ware can or will be able to do much more than it currently does. They both put peoples health at risk.
At least Tesla has a proper usable product, an electric car.
Good on sf to raise concerns, too many other governments are just looking away.
There is a legal concept of “theft by false promises” though. I don’t know where the line is drawn between that and “hype”.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now...
It doesn't seem to have hurt Tesla so far. People are still spending money on the undelivered promise of full self driving.
Tesla promised that full autonomy will enable a Tesla to be substantially safer than a human driver, lower the financial cost of transportation for those who own a car and provide low-cost on-demand mobility for those who do not.
When will Tesla deliver what was paid for?
Imagine you were a financial consulting firm and I sold you software that guaranteed that you could make 20% per year every year for your clients. But, oops, my software couldn’t do that initially and you lost millions of dollars, garnered a bad reputation, etc. Would it be okay if I eventually delivered an update that fulfilled that promise at a later date?
What is the cut off point for those who believe in musk's empty promises? 2 years? 5? What if it doesn't materialize and the first car nears end of life?
Is the "ownership" transferable?
At what point can someone say "not delivered as promised"?
It seems like Tesla is investing more on promotion and marketing than the right thing, while others simply work on a solution silently.
Wouldn't be surprised if Tesla won't be the first to market with fsd.
Whoever says the software flat out doesn't perform either hasn't been keeping up with development or has other motives.
More than anything else it’s marketing hype, and I agree calling it full self driving when it has documented flaws is disingenuous. But it’s not vaporware.
Well Theranos machines did exist and provide results, they were just wrong, so they werent vapour ware either. Its just in healthcare there is a clear benchmark they must be able to meet.
There isn't universal agreement for the benchmark for calling it FSD, and there is debate as it's safety. Personally I am not happy with any Self Driving that accidentally drives into a stationary solid object, like a wall or a trailer - that should be impossible.
Please. You can go online and buy a FSD beta car right now. Countless videos on YouTube of the product working or being improved upon release-to-release.
I remember there was a promise of some coast to coast trip, what happened there?
There have been 2K testers for a year w/o any accidents, I would much rather my life be "at risk" by Autopilot than a drunk/tired/distracted human driver.
Holy overstatement
We still haven't gotten basic technologies like speech recognition and OCR to work without proof-reading, and those have been around in consumer technology form since at least the 80's and have had an order of magnitude improvement every decade. These "fuzzy" technologies have an asymptotic improvement curve that never reaches 100% and self-driving is several orders of magnitude more complex.
* Better sensors - ~10 cameras around the car vs 2 cameras on a limited gimble.
* Very high consistency - Speed, distance from other cars, optimal stopping distance from a switching stop light, better speed/distance estimation of other entities (eventually)
* No distractions - a computer will never drunk drive / look at their phone / argue with the passenger / have road rage.
IMO These advantages will out-balance the very rare ambiguous soft situations a computer will have a hard time handling, let's say a custom written no-entry sign or a cop waving their hand.
Tesla has driven into a solid concrete wall, that does not seem ambiguous to me
I am not using FSD untill it's better than an average professional driver, like a bus driver, who have to be sober, etc. If something goes wrong there is not enough time to intervene.
I am not better than average driver in skill, I am safer than average.
Being 'better than average' by comparing to national crash statistics means better than a half-drunk guy who is sleep deprived to boot.
I don't drink, I don't need to drive for 8 hours straight, my vehicle is in good condition, I dont have to deal with a gravel path through the mountains, etc. Those are the people that dies and they are in that statistics
Many accidents (including the ones that Tesla's have prevented) include completely normal drivers who made mistakes. If AI can make fewer/no mistakes, and react better to mistakes by others, than it's a better overall outcome.
And how can a Tesla save any driver when any driver is supposed to be in full control of the vehicle at any given time? If a driver needs Tesla as a saviour, then he has no business being behind the steering wheel.
> "when any driver is supposed to be in full control of the vehicle at any given time?"
Because this is not reality. Nobody is in full awareness and control of the vehicle at all times, that's just how humans work. Even if we were, we still don't have the same reaction speeds. If you actually watch the Tesla examples, you'll lots of aware drivers who just didn't notice or react in time to a collision.
Your entire premise is faulty. We can't work with what should be but rather what actually is.
Total casualties is not the only the to consider. You have to think about responsibilities, control, separate cases etc.
In addition, currently FSD is NOT safer than manual driving when comparing on equal conditions.
From a regulatory perspective, I do think that a system that results in a ‘net savings of human life’ should be permitted, even though removing the human from the equation would likely change the distribution of driving deaths, such that some people (like exceptionally careful drivers) may be marginally more likely to die in such a system. Those people should of course have the choice to drive themselves.
From the perspective of an individual, a ‘net savings of human life’ may not be a good enough threshold. I personally would not want to put my child in a self-driving car unless I felt confident that it was safer than driving myself, and the knowledge that the AI was “statistically better than the average driver” would not instill sufficient confidence.
Also the basic tech you mentioned like OCR and speech recognition is actually so good now that it runs on your mobile device, can tailor itself to the way you talk and write, and can even enable real-time translation to other languages across mediums like something out of a sci-fi movie.
So why should that layer, after meticulasly checking this document, trust his life to another ML system, just like the one that just failed him?
In fact ML does already do a better job in tasks like crawling through case research, while people then take over for strategy and deduction.
This split between low-level mechanical vs high-level creative thinking is a good distinction between ML vs human application, and most driving falls in the former.
And they don't check the output? Are you sure about that, because the few I've spoken to say they won't touch it with a barge pole.
If they do check, then they don't trust the system. In driving you don't to hit pause and check the output.
1. https://www.nuance.com/dragon/business-solutions/dragon-lega...