Hacker News Reader

I focus on Tesla's problems because Tesla deliberately markets their vehicles as driving themselves. They can have all the fine print they want, but when their marketing touts their "full self-driving capabilities", people will treat their car as though it can drive itself... fully.

Compare the marketing text for Tesla[0]:

> Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features, and full self-driving capabilities—through software updates designed to improve functionality over time.

to the text for Mercedes[1]:

> Driving assistance systems in S-Class: Intelligent Drive Next Level. With new and considerably extended driving assistance functions, the new S-Class will this autumn be taking a further, major step towards autonomous driving.

One of these is marketing responsibly in a way that makes it clear that the driver is still supposed to be in control, and it's not Tesla. In the marketing pages linked below, Mercedes uses the word "assist" 35 times and in 9 out of 14 headers. Read through Tesla's headers, in contrast, and you get "autopilot", "autosteer", "full self-driving". You come away with the impression that the car drives itself.

[0] https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

[1] https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/innovation/autonomous/the-n...

I think its also good to note that a lot of the other automakers were previously very conservative about their marketing claims and were getting more aggressive in response to Tesla's overtly aggressive claims. I'm sure a lot of execs/boards were a bit envious of the Tesla PE multiple that Tesla was getting based on the overly aggressive marketing claims.

> And I didn’t call it ‘Autopilot’ here on purpose .... Why do we all tend to focus on, and demonize Tesla’s version?

My guess is that it's because Tesla themselves are calling the advanced cruise control system "Autopilot".

This risks presenting drivers with a level of misconception, and trust that this system does not deserve.

You can tell somebody (including Tesla owners themselves) plainly that this is no different than the other "advanced cruise control systems", that they should not put too much stock in relying on the system to drive themselves, and that they must be even more alert; however, I think there's a cognitive view in place -- even if you are told the contrary -- that causes people to think subconsciously that Tesla's cruise control is smarter. Almost like the car has a built in "Autopilot."

Technically in the car and owner's manual "autopilot" refers to the suite of features[0] and "Autosteer (beta)" [1] refers to the lane keeping system, and enabling it pops up a warning about staying focused[2].

0: https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-EDA7728...

1: https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-69AEB32...

2: https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/02/autos...

> Why do we all tend to focus on, and demonize Tesla’s version?

Because Tesla has been claiming fully-autonomous L5 self-driving “will be released next year” for half a decade now.

Not to mention robo-taxis, and the continued lies covering up their insufficient camera/perception hardware. Tesla needs HW5 at least.

FYI: Andrew Karpathy left Tesla a few months ago and is on garden leave. For better marketing, Elon calls it a sabbatical.

Some other brands have level 2 driver assistance technology as a standard feature. All of these can operate the steering wheel, brakes, and accelerator, and require the driver to intervene if they make mistakes.

The major difference is that Tesla pushes their system to operate in a wider variety of conditions, while still putting the same responsibility on the driver, and advertising the system using language that suggests that it is higher than level 2 functionality.

It should be illegal to advertise a SAE level 2 driver assistance feature as “self driving” (regardless of how much fine print you have); by definition, it never drives itself.

There's a conflation of issues here. I agree that "FSD 'beta'" is pushing it as advertising goes, and probably on the wrong side of the line. I don't accept that advertising copy makes operating a car more or less dangerous.

Tesla's system does more than the average level 2, so it's more useful. This may also mean operating it is more dangerous, but that isn't a given. Has it been demonstrated? If it has, I'd like to see that.

It seems to be mostly taken for granted in this sort of conversation, and it seems like if it were demonstrably the case, there would be a pithy blog on that subject online. I can only say I haven't seen that, but it could easily exist, this isn't something I focus on.

Tesla’s system does more driver assistance than other level 2 systems, but it is a level 2 system itself.

FSD is an egregious misnomer. It doesn’t take over driving responsibilities under any circumstance. “Full automation” under SAE J3016 is level 5.

The dangerous part is the false impressions of capability that they give to some of their drivers.

> I don't accept that advertising copy makes operating a car more or less dangerous.

Advertising copy doesn't alter the car's safety, but it can make the driver of a car more or less dangerous. Tesla sells their cars as being capable of fully driving themselves, hands people a contract with a bunch of fine print saying "actually you still need to pay attention", and then acts shocked when drivers respond to the flashy marketing rather than to the fine print.

It's absurd that people still defend Tesla after all that marketing and place full blame on the drivers. Yes the drivers were careless, but Tesla intentionally created an environment in which drivers could believe their cars would take care of themselves!

I do not know the law in the US for that, but how the manufacturer represent the product and its capabilities can often make him liable.

Unlike most others, Tesla has been very brazen to describe its system as self piloting rather than driving assists (but see the tons of asterisk at the bottom who clearly state that we're lying in the big letters!). Naming it Autopilot being one of the most obvious cases, autopilot means something and that's not what theirs does.

I know that things like EULA, NDA, and other forms of agreement like that are more easily enforceable there so maybe legally they won't be in trouble, but morally my personal belief is that they absolutely are.

Apparently Mercedes disagrees[0] and will take legal responsibility for self-driving cars.

[0]: https://www.kbb.com/car-news/mercedes-well-be-liable-for-sel...

Mercedes is saying that about their L3 system, which is not yet available. Until that system is available and Mercedes has acted on their stated intent, then drivers are responsible as 40four said. And from your article: "It isn’t clear whether the company can legally take over liability from drivers."

Every manufacturer has responsibility for damages causes by manufacturing defects, whether or not they incorporate that fact into their marketing.

How many wrecks and deaths have been caused by other manufacturer’s systems? It’s got to be happening.

We actually do have the numbers on this, because other manufacturers actually report this data.

Tesla has more self-driving accidents, and more fatalities, than the entire rest of the auto industry, worldwide, combined.

This will continue to be a problem, not just for Tesla, as the tech becomes more widespread.

This is uniquely a problem for Tesla, not the industry, because the rest of the industry took safety issues into account when designing their systems and testing them. Tesla deliberately did not for profit purposes.

In both cases, it is bad for Tesla.

- If you go with the idea that Autopilot is dependable then it is Tesla's fault. The system is supposed to prevent that from happening and it didn't, killing two.

- If you go with the idea that Autopilot is just an assistance then it is the driver's fault, but it also means that the system doesn't bring much value. If you have to pay attention at all time, correcting mistakes, then you may as well just drive.

>If you go with the idea that Autopilot is dependable then it is Tesla's fault. The system is supposed to prevent that from happening and it didn't, killing two.

the system is very clear that you should be monitoring the car while driving, all the time.

>If you go with the idea that Autopilot is just an assistance then it is the driver's fault, but it also means that the system doesn't bring much value. If you have to pay attention at all time, correcting mistakes, then you may as well just drive.

Value is a subjective proposition and not inherent to anything but your own judgement.

This guy tests Tesla's object detection - it fails badly. https://youtu.be/p7lp5f0aqzU?t=62

I'd like to see others duplicate such tests and a response from Tesla on whether this behavior is as designed.

When it comes to trailers specifically, I could be pretty easily convinced that a computer will handle it better than a human. The physics are tricky to intuit and the feedback you get is not great.