I recovered ~$250,000 under beverly song act (California lemon law). (My principal and interest back for multiple vehicles)
I repeatedly complained it was activating “emergency lane departure” while driving manually, even after disabling the setting. This had the effect of the vehicles swerving towards cross walks or walls.
Clearly a software issue but they played dumb and forced me to book service visits and refused to provide loaners.
Each time they returned the vehicle(s) with a short resolution of “expected characteristic”.
I read my purchase agreement, emailed them, and simply stated they are obliged to buy back my fleet given its a hazard to public safety. They obliged without discussion.
There were also other persistent issues with the vehicle beyond the software but i suspect the software put them into a double bind where if they “fix” it they create more liability via accidental disengagements.
I’ve had this type of issue on multiple European car brands. Software issues with driver assistance features, which they keep ignoring. Things like sudden unexplained braking, not showing down due to cars stopped ahead, swerving randomly... I accepted it because getting them to cover anything, even physical things, even under warranty. They just come up with self serving guidelines and excuses.
One reason I love my mid-00s Lexus SUV. All the luxury features you want, but clean instrument cluster with no driving assistance tech to break or get in the way. Great visual clarity on the road, 300K miles on original drivetrain without issues, and a beast in the snow/inclement weather. Only downside is mileage, but I legit wouldn't trade it for a new car.
At this point I want basically no driver assistance features except maybe an automatic cruise control speed adjustment to vehicle directly in the lane ahead based on forward facing radar data. Many of them seem to be much more troublesome or buggy than they're worth.
So I skimmed several articles and the reasons why the Theranos CEO was sentenced to 11 years are
1. The scale of the fraud was too big
2. From emails it seemed she intentionally tricked investors
3. The product, medical equipment, endangered patients.
I think this can be applied to Tesla too (though I'm not sure there is enough evidence of 2). Shouldn't someone in charge be sentenced to at least a few years?
Right, I've also heard your (1) above expressed as "she basically stole from the wrong set of people -- rich and powerful".
Kinda-sorta off-topic (but not really), it reminds me of Charlie Javice. She sold a database of college loan applicants to JP Morgan for $175 million -- it later turned out that she had fabricated most of that data.
I think the big difference is that criminal wire fraud depends on a "clear scheme to defraud with intent". Tesla/Musk can argue that they thought they would delivery - They've been making claims that FSD was coming for years and have been slowly making deliveries towards FSD, its just that its harder/taken longer than expected and without a smoking gun (email chains like in the Holmes case) it would be very hard to prove.
They may have committed false advertising or "failed to deliver on contract" but they are civil matters, which could still involve big payouts, but not prison time.
The real problem, which I think the article does a poor job of making clear: Tesla sold millions of cars before the current generation Hardware 4 vehicles with $10,000 full self driving packages which never really materialized convincingly ‘full’ self-driving capability. There’s fair arguments for the HW4 vehicles not having FSD either, maybe because it needs to be supervised or isn’t perfect or whatever. But the HW4 experience is good enough that I don’t think many HW4 owners are angry; it’s by far the best consumer self driving experience you can buy, and is very good. It’s the HW3 owners that got screwed and absolutely deserve money back.
I live in a suburban area in a cold climate. Based on what I've seen of "FSD," it's essentially unusable on most of the roads near me, and doubly so in winter. This is even true on larger highways/freeways, as when snow falls the camera systems can't see the lane markings. Not to mention the fact that some of those roads are so badly maintained that the lane markings are faint to nonexistent.
I don't think Tesla can honestly claim 99%, or 95%, or even 50% of the way to FSD until they solve these issues. Until they do, it's just a fun toy. After all, years ago they were claiming that you'd be able to "summon" a Tesla sans driver from LA to NYC. What happens if there's a winter storm on the way?
Earning calls are when CEO’s are telling the truth about their products. Knowing Tesla’s history of making payments he won’t see a dime. I’m no lawyer but he should set up a publicity stunt like the man who seized Bank of America’s equipment in order to get paid in full the same day. (George and Ora Lee, successfully seized assets from a Bank of America branch after the bank wrongly foreclosed on their home)
Gawiser filed a “writ of execution” (another $240 in court fees) just yesterday, which would allow Texas law enforcement to seize and sell off enough of Tesla’s property as would be required to pay the judgment against them.
I look forward to the day when this goes further up the hierarchy of US domestic courts, and some final decision is reached ordering Tesla to pay back the money every purchaser of "full self driving" paid for something that is clearly not level 4 or level 5 autonomy.
"court made a judgment in his favor in the amount of $10,672.88, the amount Gawiser paid for FSD, including taxes and court fees." should include interest as well
I'm of the opinion that it'd be fair to treat that money as an investment in Tesla at that time. In my case, the $8K in Dec 2016 would translate to them being on the hook for ~$260K today.
Which is why I think Tesla shouldn't be slow-rolling their doing whatever is necessary to get those of us who pre-bought FSD up to the HW4 level. HW4 won't physically fit in a 2016 Model S? Give us a 2026 Model X (they dropped Model S), and you're still $160K ahead.
I've been surprised that there hasn't been a major class action about the FSD. I've been very happy with the car, but the FSD was outright fraud.
Not sure I agree with your second sentence, at least in the US. I may see "cheese product" or "dairy product" or "cheese flavor" but if it says real cheese, it's real cheese. My favorite example was seeing "onion (then in tiny text 'flavored') rings"
It may be real cheese, but the cheese may not be where you expected it to be. A friend of mine was served a snack pack on a flight that had some breadsticks and a cheese dip, and the box said it was made with real cheese.
She read the ingredients list and found that the real cheese was part of the breadsticks. The cheese dip had no cheese.
Is there a fuck-you option by which a large company can force escalating costs on you through small claims? Can they, for example, remove it to a federal court?
I don't think they can, but at the same time they can appeal a judgement that's unfavorable to them. Appeals in small claims allow for having attorneys present, at least in California, and it's another day in court that you'll have to argue your case.
>Is there a fuck-you option by which a large company can force escalating costs on you through small claims?
It'll vary by state, in general I don't think so? Or at least not if (as apparently was the case here) they don't have anything preventing it in some contractual agreement. In some states a party can appeal to a superior court, but that's not a new trial redo, the judge simply reviews what happened and see if it looks reasonably kosher. If it was they still lose.
The big check on small claims cases is, well, that they're small claims. Nobody could go after a full refund for the cost of a vehicle there for example. If you look at the maximum amounts by state [0], in lots of them even the $10k here would be above the limit (Kentucky is still at $2500 max). My state also was quite low until fairly recently, just because there's no automatic adjustment for inflation and $2500 in 1980 went a lot further than now and state legislature hadn't gotten around to adjusting it up for decades.
And in small claims the winner can generally recover reasonable costs and fees on top of damages (as happened here). And it's 50 different states a company with a national problem would have to get separate attorneys for to deal with. It's one of the few places where the asymmetry is somewhat more towards companies, without any need for the plaintiff to get a lawyer themselves and given that they're almost always going to be physically much closer, it's just a lot more costly for a company to drag it out. They're not going to be setting any useful precedent vs any other small claims, and the max amount is small enough that it's rarely going to be worth it if their claims are weak. Someone angry enough to go to small claims is much more likely to stick to it through sheer bloody mindedness, which is basically all they actually need.
I think normally companies simply just don't create enough of a small claims problem for themselves for any of this to be more than a rounding error. Elon Musk may have somehow managed it though?
Be sure to vibe code a way for everyone to save money and hire the same process serving company to do service by hand of multiple suits in bulk at the same time.
Why just the $10k? Could you get a full refund? If I order a $12 burrito and you give me a $10 sandwich, I would feel owed my $12 back, not the $2 difference in price.
You should have the option of getting the $12 back provided you also return the sandwich. You don't get a free sandwich out of the deal unless the seller cares about good will.
The reimbursement covers the add-on. It's more like ordering a $10 sandwich and a $2 bag of chips, then not receiving the bag of chips and getting your $2 back.
You all don’t understand. FSD works fine as long as you evaluate it 5 years in the future. No I don’t mean 2031, because in 2031 you need to evaluate it in 2036.
But remember folks that Musk wants the best for humanity, is a humanist, wants to help all people and the future will be so awesome that no one will have to work and everyone will live in a penthouse.
> Gawiser filed a “writ of execution” (another $240 in court fees) just yesterday, which would allow Texas law enforcement to seize and sell off enough of Tesla’s property as would be required to pay the judgment against them.
Since they probably won't do business with anyone who owns that car anymore, take a battery and run.
From what I've seen on YouTube the cars do drive themselves. This seems more like the type of thing with AI where people change the goal posts of what AI means. Just because a car did not slow down in a school zone, that doesn't mean that the car wasn't driving itself.
This is a common misconception. People tend to think driving is controlling the steering and pedals, so if FSD does those things it must be driving.
It's not. Driving is whatever has ultimate responsibility for the vehicle and its occupants. If a cop pulls you over while FSD is enabled, it's not Tesla who's paying the ticket. If FSD has an issue, you're the driver who has to respond.
Think of FSD as a very nice cruise control. You're still driving, even if you aren't touching the wheel.
The bottom line is, no one else is even remotely close to that experience for the driver, liable or not. Probably with good reason, as every other car company actually listen to their lawyers.
So if the law says that a human in the car has to be responsible then it is impossible for a self driving car to exist. I do not think tying the definition to legal liability is right.
I don't see why self driving couldn't just be steering and pedals. It would be pretty limiting but it would be able to drive itself in a circle at least.
Well ... yes. By that logic it is the case. It applies to humans too - if a human slams their car into a concrete wall then the human was still driving the car. They did a bad job of it, but they were in fact driving.
A car being driven autonomously doesn't imply much about the quality of that driving. They're still going to make bad decisions and have accidents, just like humans do (a friend of mine died slamming their car into a tree). There is probably some minimum where we'd say that it isn't really driving because it can't do anything right, but modern self driving systems are past that.
Those are cars with the "HW4" FSD hardware, which was released in Mar 2023.
There were a lot of cars sold with "HW2" (nVidia-based) and HW3 (Tesla silicon). Those cars, apparently cannot be upgraded to HW4 because of physical size differences between the units. HW2 was able to be upgraded to HW3.
Those videos you are talking about seeing do not represent the FSD experience for all, or possibly even most, Tesla FSD vehicles in the wild.
It's fairly simple. Tesla says I have to supervise, and they are not liable for anything the car does wrong. It is not full self-driving any more than a 25 40 year old car with cruise control is.
Elon Musks claims included (exact quotes, these posts are still on X):
Jan 10, 2016: In ~2 years, summon should work anywhere connected by land & not blocked by borders, eg you're in LA and the car is in NY
Jul 16, 2019: If we make all cars with FSD package self-driving, as planned, any such Tesla should be worth $100k to $200k, as utility increases from ~12 hours/week to ~60 hours/week
These aren't moving goalposts by antis, this are the expectations set by Elon Musk himself when advertising his products.
Those YouTubers are all there to make Tesla look good. It’s a grift. The ones that are honest and show the bad side get kicked out of the Tesla club fast and dogpiled on.
Also a school zone is one of the most basic things the car should be able to handle. If it can’t do that, it’s not ready for public use.
>Also a school zone is one of the most basic things the car should be able to handle. If it can’t do that, it’s not ready for public use.
Humans don't always follow the law driving through school zones. And when humans speed through a school zone, the human is definitely driving the car. Are we ready to let humans drive on public roads?
The argument has to go into the magnitude of the problem to get anywhere meaningful.
See, that's really the best argument for this. It can drive itself the same way I can fly an Airbus A321. You can't sue me because I didn't land the plane "intact".
I recovered ~$250,000 under beverly song act (California lemon law). (My principal and interest back for multiple vehicles)
I repeatedly complained it was activating “emergency lane departure” while driving manually, even after disabling the setting. This had the effect of the vehicles swerving towards cross walks or walls.
Clearly a software issue but they played dumb and forced me to book service visits and refused to provide loaners.
Each time they returned the vehicle(s) with a short resolution of “expected characteristic”.
I read my purchase agreement, emailed them, and simply stated they are obliged to buy back my fleet given its a hazard to public safety. They obliged without discussion.
There were also other persistent issues with the vehicle beyond the software but i suspect the software put them into a double bind where if they “fix” it they create more liability via accidental disengagements.
I’ve had this type of issue on multiple European car brands. Software issues with driver assistance features, which they keep ignoring. Things like sudden unexplained braking, not showing down due to cars stopped ahead, swerving randomly... I accepted it because getting them to cover anything, even physical things, even under warranty. They just come up with self serving guidelines and excuses.
Glad you had success. Did it require lawyers?
I (also in CA) lemon returned a Mercedes EV. Same kind of thing, they could not fix repeated software issues w/ the collision avoidance features.
I called them up, gave a short explanation, and they sent me to their vendor who handles the returns, no issues. Full price (including tax etc) back.
AIUI, they know not to fight, since in CA when they loose, they pay your legal fees.
3 replies →
One reason I love my mid-00s Lexus SUV. All the luxury features you want, but clean instrument cluster with no driving assistance tech to break or get in the way. Great visual clarity on the road, 300K miles on original drivetrain without issues, and a beast in the snow/inclement weather. Only downside is mileage, but I legit wouldn't trade it for a new car.
1 reply →
At this point I want basically no driver assistance features except maybe an automatic cruise control speed adjustment to vehicle directly in the lane ahead based on forward facing radar data. Many of them seem to be much more troublesome or buggy than they're worth.
11 replies →
So I skimmed several articles and the reasons why the Theranos CEO was sentenced to 11 years are
I think this can be applied to Tesla too (though I'm not sure there is enough evidence of 2). Shouldn't someone in charge be sentenced to at least a few years?
2 more, most important reasons she was sentenced:
1. She stopped making money for rich people.
2. She herself wasn’t rich enough.
Leon is too rich, and he keeps on making money for the right people.
Right, I've also heard your (1) above expressed as "she basically stole from the wrong set of people -- rich and powerful".
Kinda-sorta off-topic (but not really), it reminds me of Charlie Javice. She sold a database of college loan applicants to JP Morgan for $175 million -- it later turned out that she had fabricated most of that data.
I think the big difference is that criminal wire fraud depends on a "clear scheme to defraud with intent". Tesla/Musk can argue that they thought they would delivery - They've been making claims that FSD was coming for years and have been slowly making deliveries towards FSD, its just that its harder/taken longer than expected and without a smoking gun (email chains like in the Holmes case) it would be very hard to prove.
They may have committed false advertising or "failed to deliver on contract" but they are civil matters, which could still involve big payouts, but not prison time.
3 was likely in practice a reason that prosecution was pushed for, but IIRC those claims were the only ones she won on.
I'd say repeatedly forecasting "full self driving next year" every year for a decade qualifies Tesla for #2.
Think about who she ripped off and the difference will be obvious.
The real problem, which I think the article does a poor job of making clear: Tesla sold millions of cars before the current generation Hardware 4 vehicles with $10,000 full self driving packages which never really materialized convincingly ‘full’ self-driving capability. There’s fair arguments for the HW4 vehicles not having FSD either, maybe because it needs to be supervised or isn’t perfect or whatever. But the HW4 experience is good enough that I don’t think many HW4 owners are angry; it’s by far the best consumer self driving experience you can buy, and is very good. It’s the HW3 owners that got screwed and absolutely deserve money back.
On the recent earnings call they did finally acknowledge they will have to upgrade the hardware in HW3 cars so they can fully self drive.
The flayed the solution of “popup factories” in cities across the US to carry out the upgrade.
Seems like HW3 has been pretty good since FSD v12.3+ came out.
If we describe HW4 as 99% of the way to true FSD, then HW3 is probably 95% of the way.
Though approaching 100% (maybe 2x the human standard) is going to be exponentially harder to get to.
> HW4 as 99% of the way to true FSD
If we describe current LLMs 99% of the way to AGI and full sentience then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA was probably 90% of the way.
I'm reminded of the adage about getting 80% of the way through shipping a product, and then doing the other 80%...
1 reply →
I live in a suburban area in a cold climate. Based on what I've seen of "FSD," it's essentially unusable on most of the roads near me, and doubly so in winter. This is even true on larger highways/freeways, as when snow falls the camera systems can't see the lane markings. Not to mention the fact that some of those roads are so badly maintained that the lane markings are faint to nonexistent.
I don't think Tesla can honestly claim 99%, or 95%, or even 50% of the way to FSD until they solve these issues. Until they do, it's just a fun toy. After all, years ago they were claiming that you'd be able to "summon" a Tesla sans driver from LA to NYC. What happens if there's a winter storm on the way?
1 reply →
Earning calls are when CEO’s are telling the truth about their products. Knowing Tesla’s history of making payments he won’t see a dime. I’m no lawyer but he should set up a publicity stunt like the man who seized Bank of America’s equipment in order to get paid in full the same day. (George and Ora Lee, successfully seized assets from a Bank of America branch after the bank wrongly foreclosed on their home)
I think you mean Warren and Maureen Nyerges: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/couple-almost-forecloses-on-ban...
George and Ora Lee appear to be a couple who died hours apart in 2016 after being married for 58 years.
Yea you are right. Google failed me once again.
"Yeah, so they won't be giving the Bank of America any more trouble, capisce?" -- Bank of America
5 replies →
> George and Ora Lee, successfully seized assets from a Bank of America branch after the bank wrongly foreclosed on their home
This is the type of person that deserves to have a statue in public
Gawiser filed a “writ of execution” (another $240 in court fees) just yesterday, which would allow Texas law enforcement to seize and sell off enough of Tesla’s property as would be required to pay the judgment against them.
It's not him they're fighting, it's precedence and the impending flood of lawsuits.
It's a small claims court, there is no precedence. Tesla didn't even reply so it just went to default judgement
The article says there's already been other small claims over this where they settled, such as in 2023 in the UK also for $10k
Precedent. Please please let's not change English to conflate those two words.
You're right, thanks for the catch.
I look forward to the day when this goes further up the hierarchy of US domestic courts, and some final decision is reached ordering Tesla to pay back the money every purchaser of "full self driving" paid for something that is clearly not level 4 or level 5 autonomy.
This is a solved problem. They have plenty of bagholders willing to donate to the cause.
"court made a judgment in his favor in the amount of $10,672.88, the amount Gawiser paid for FSD, including taxes and court fees." should include interest as well
The judgement also includes interest, 6.75% per year.
To be truly fair should also adjust for inflation of US dollar of $10672 at the time he purchased it vs. April 2026.
For instance CPI inflation calculator says 10672 in Jan. 2022 is $12,534.44 today.
I'm of the opinion that it'd be fair to treat that money as an investment in Tesla at that time. In my case, the $8K in Dec 2016 would translate to them being on the hook for ~$260K today.
Which is why I think Tesla shouldn't be slow-rolling their doing whatever is necessary to get those of us who pre-bought FSD up to the HW4 level. HW4 won't physically fit in a 2016 Model S? Give us a 2026 Model X (they dropped Model S), and you're still $160K ahead.
I've been surprised that there hasn't been a major class action about the FSD. I've been very happy with the car, but the FSD was outright fraud.
Inflation is part of interest; you don't get reimbursed for both separately.
4 replies →
The "Full" in "Full Self Driving" was one of the giveaways. It's like packaged food labeled with "Real" ("Real cheese" etc)
Not sure I agree with your second sentence, at least in the US. I may see "cheese product" or "dairy product" or "cheese flavor" but if it says real cheese, it's real cheese. My favorite example was seeing "onion (then in tiny text 'flavored') rings"
It may be real cheese, but the cheese may not be where you expected it to be. A friend of mine was served a snack pack on a flight that had some breadsticks and a cheese dip, and the box said it was made with real cheese.
She read the ingredients list and found that the real cheese was part of the breadsticks. The cheese dip had no cheese.
No, you see, if it says "cheese" then I would assume it's real cheese. If it says "real cheese" I'm immediately suspicious.
The point is that if you have to say it's made with real cheese, the food is complete junk. Even though the cheese may technically be real.
They even banned the term "soy milk"
It's now called "non dairy soy beverage" on every carton.
4 replies →
That idea of a simultaneous small claims day is brilliant. I hope somebody is vibecoding that site up right now.
Is there a fuck-you option by which a large company can force escalating costs on you through small claims? Can they, for example, remove it to a federal court?
I don't think they can, but at the same time they can appeal a judgement that's unfavorable to them. Appeals in small claims allow for having attorneys present, at least in California, and it's another day in court that you'll have to argue your case.
>Is there a fuck-you option by which a large company can force escalating costs on you through small claims?
It'll vary by state, in general I don't think so? Or at least not if (as apparently was the case here) they don't have anything preventing it in some contractual agreement. In some states a party can appeal to a superior court, but that's not a new trial redo, the judge simply reviews what happened and see if it looks reasonably kosher. If it was they still lose.
The big check on small claims cases is, well, that they're small claims. Nobody could go after a full refund for the cost of a vehicle there for example. If you look at the maximum amounts by state [0], in lots of them even the $10k here would be above the limit (Kentucky is still at $2500 max). My state also was quite low until fairly recently, just because there's no automatic adjustment for inflation and $2500 in 1980 went a lot further than now and state legislature hadn't gotten around to adjusting it up for decades.
And in small claims the winner can generally recover reasonable costs and fees on top of damages (as happened here). And it's 50 different states a company with a national problem would have to get separate attorneys for to deal with. It's one of the few places where the asymmetry is somewhat more towards companies, without any need for the plaintiff to get a lawyer themselves and given that they're almost always going to be physically much closer, it's just a lot more costly for a company to drag it out. They're not going to be setting any useful precedent vs any other small claims, and the max amount is small enough that it's rarely going to be worth it if their claims are weak. Someone angry enough to go to small claims is much more likely to stick to it through sheer bloody mindedness, which is basically all they actually need.
I think normally companies simply just don't create enough of a small claims problem for themselves for any of this to be more than a rounding error. Elon Musk may have somehow managed it though?
----
0: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-claims-suits-h...
Be sure to vibe code a way for everyone to save money and hire the same process serving company to do service by hand of multiple suits in bulk at the same time.
Why just the $10k? Could you get a full refund? If I order a $12 burrito and you give me a $10 sandwich, I would feel owed my $12 back, not the $2 difference in price.
You should have the option of getting the $12 back provided you also return the sandwich. You don't get a free sandwich out of the deal unless the seller cares about good will.
The reimbursement covers the add-on. It's more like ordering a $10 sandwich and a $2 bag of chips, then not receiving the bag of chips and getting your $2 back.
He should publish a "bring Tesla to small court" kit, with all documents other people in the similar situation can use to sue them.
Bottom line: FSD was a fraud.
You all don’t understand. FSD works fine as long as you evaluate it 5 years in the future. No I don’t mean 2031, because in 2031 you need to evaluate it in 2036.
FSD will work next year --- perpetually.
[dead]
[flagged]
Ask the editor of HN
But remember folks that Musk wants the best for humanity, is a humanist, wants to help all people and the future will be so awesome that no one will have to work and everyone will live in a penthouse.
His X says so daily, so it must be true.
Be smart and take a free battery.
What do you mean by that?
> Gawiser filed a “writ of execution” (another $240 in court fees) just yesterday, which would allow Texas law enforcement to seize and sell off enough of Tesla’s property as would be required to pay the judgment against them.
Since they probably won't do business with anyone who owns that car anymore, take a battery and run.
From what I've seen on YouTube the cars do drive themselves. This seems more like the type of thing with AI where people change the goal posts of what AI means. Just because a car did not slow down in a school zone, that doesn't mean that the car wasn't driving itself.
This is a common misconception. People tend to think driving is controlling the steering and pedals, so if FSD does those things it must be driving.
It's not. Driving is whatever has ultimate responsibility for the vehicle and its occupants. If a cop pulls you over while FSD is enabled, it's not Tesla who's paying the ticket. If FSD has an issue, you're the driver who has to respond.
Think of FSD as a very nice cruise control. You're still driving, even if you aren't touching the wheel.
Sort of how programming isn't the same as writing code — it also involves a bunch of other thing like all the design and planning work.
It's a common misconception because the thing is called "full self driving."
1 reply →
The bottom line is, no one else is even remotely close to that experience for the driver, liable or not. Probably with good reason, as every other car company actually listen to their lawyers.
So if the law says that a human in the car has to be responsible then it is impossible for a self driving car to exist. I do not think tying the definition to legal liability is right.
I don't see why self driving couldn't just be steering and pedals. It would be pretty limiting but it would be able to drive itself in a circle at least.
3 replies →
By this definition, putting a brick on the accelerator and tying the steering wheel in place is self-driving.
By that logic it’s ok if the car slams itself against a concrete wall - just because it failed to stop in time doesn’t mean it wasn’t driving itself.
Self driving cars are supposed to obey the same rules as human drivers.
Well ... yes. By that logic it is the case. It applies to humans too - if a human slams their car into a concrete wall then the human was still driving the car. They did a bad job of it, but they were in fact driving.
A car being driven autonomously doesn't imply much about the quality of that driving. They're still going to make bad decisions and have accidents, just like humans do (a friend of mine died slamming their car into a tree). There is probably some minimum where we'd say that it isn't really driving because it can't do anything right, but modern self driving systems are past that.
2 replies →
Tesla FSD is vulnerable to RoadRunner and Wile E. Coyote style tricks.
4 replies →
Both statements can be true. Human vs self driving cars is a different classification between good and bad driving. Humans can slam into a wall too.
When full liability is put on the manufacturer, then we can talk about "cars driving themselves".
Mercedes-Benz accepts full liability when their Drive Pilot autonomous system is active.
https://www.mbusa.com/en/drive-pilot
>the cars do drive themselves
Those are cars with the "HW4" FSD hardware, which was released in Mar 2023.
There were a lot of cars sold with "HW2" (nVidia-based) and HW3 (Tesla silicon). Those cars, apparently cannot be upgraded to HW4 because of physical size differences between the units. HW2 was able to be upgraded to HW3.
Those videos you are talking about seeing do not represent the FSD experience for all, or possibly even most, Tesla FSD vehicles in the wild.
It's fairly simple. Tesla says I have to supervise, and they are not liable for anything the car does wrong. It is not full self-driving any more than a 25 40 year old car with cruise control is.
AI never had goalposts, it means programming meant to look like human behavior. Like AI opponents in old video games.
Tesla FSD won't be level 5 until Tesla has liability for any crashes it causes the way Waymo does.
Elon Musks claims included (exact quotes, these posts are still on X):
Jan 10, 2016: In ~2 years, summon should work anywhere connected by land & not blocked by borders, eg you're in LA and the car is in NY
Jul 16, 2019: If we make all cars with FSD package self-driving, as planned, any such Tesla should be worth $100k to $200k, as utility increases from ~12 hours/week to ~60 hours/week
These aren't moving goalposts by antis, this are the expectations set by Elon Musk himself when advertising his products.
Here's more than a decade of claims from Tesla on self driving vehicles summarized in one handy table:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...
Those YouTubers are all there to make Tesla look good. It’s a grift. The ones that are honest and show the bad side get kicked out of the Tesla club fast and dogpiled on.
Also a school zone is one of the most basic things the car should be able to handle. If it can’t do that, it’s not ready for public use.
>Also a school zone is one of the most basic things the car should be able to handle. If it can’t do that, it’s not ready for public use.
Humans don't always follow the law driving through school zones. And when humans speed through a school zone, the human is definitely driving the car. Are we ready to let humans drive on public roads?
The argument has to go into the magnitude of the problem to get anywhere meaningful.
See, that's really the best argument for this. It can drive itself the same way I can fly an Airbus A321. You can't sue me because I didn't land the plane "intact".