“Translation: all the times Tesla has vowed that all of its vehicles would soon be capable of fully driving themselves may have been a convenient act of salesmanship that ultimately turned out not to be true.”

Another way to say that, is Tesla scammed all of their customers, since you know, everyone saw this coming…

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Sometimes I’m reminded that there’s always a chance that they go submarine diving or some such with another overconfident crony who thinks their skills got them where they are today.

      • tankplanker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        I would like them to try to go to Mars this coming January. I am sure with enough fuel one of Elons rockets can get it moving in the right direction, they can wing everything else as they go.

    • Andy@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I think his intense commitment to getting Trump elected makes more sense when you consider this article.

      His enormous wealth is largely stored in the form of Tesla stock, and that stock has been valued based on the belief that it isn’t a car company, it’s a robotaxi service currently selling the hardware to finance the software development. The value – and his wealth – can persist indefinitely as long as investors continue to accept that premise, no matter how long delayed. But if something tangibly undermines that premise, Musk could conceivably lose the majority of his wealth overnight.

      The National Highway Traffic Safety Agency is probably the greatest threat to his wealth. He doesn’t worry about competitors or protestors or Twitter users or advertisers. They’re all just petty nuisances. But the federal regulator over roads… that is his proverbial killer snail. And I think fully capturing the entire federal regulatory state is his strategy to permanently confine that snail.

      More than anything else, I think that’s what is motivating his radical embrace of fascism.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Well any political choice will increase the wealth of the billionaire class in general. Ant candidate that is a threat to that will be smeared to dust before they get anywhere near power.

          But Musk is going for the more direct approach, and tbh I think the second Trump gets power again he’ll have no need for Musk and will treat him like the parasite he is. He’s certainly done that before.

      • RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m happily using all the sensors my car offers, even if I’m pretty ok with driving by eyesight. Better sensors that can easily see through fog/rain/snow/whatever? Hell yeah, give them to me.

        • Gawdl3y@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          LiDAR in particular actually kinda sucks at those conditions (basically any form of precipitation). It’s really only good in clear environments.

          • tate@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            LiDAR can be done with different wavelengths. It should be possible to make one that can see through rain and snow.

              • tate@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                Agreed. But you don’t have to go that far to make rain and snow transparent. And radar might not be a bad idea to have on self driving cars, as long as it’s not the only thing.

    • aaron@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Elon Musks make engineering orders of magnitude more difficult. Those poor Tesla neoslaves

      • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        They were on the path of self driving cars till Musk pulled the plug on the LiDAR and opted for cameras (cost less). He is directly responsible for why autopilot isn’t so auto.

        • III@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          To be fair, the LiDAR was primarily used for parking. Still a stupid decision to remove it. There were plenty of values it provides…but those cars were never going to drive themselves even if they did have LiDAR.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I personally don’t think it’s a matter of more sensory input. Whilst Lidar wouldn’t be a bad thing, autonomous cars are just a problem current technology can’t solve.

      • Anivia@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        We already have road legal level 4 self driving cars for sale in Germany (Mercedes EQS and S Class), level 5 isnt far away.

        If Tesla didn’t go the vision-only route they would probably also have level 4 autonomy by now

      • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        The vehicles with a higher automated driving rating than Tesla use a more diverse range of sensory inputs. While it may not make fully autonomous driving, it very clearly would have made Tesla closer to it based on the fact that cars that use things like lidar in addition to cameras surpassed Tesla’s rating many years ago.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        It is to some degree. Lots of other new cars have lane keeping assist and automatic braking, BLIS, adaptive cruise control etc, and so on with more capable sensors and can for the most part drive without input from the driver better than the Tesla models with ultrasonic sensors or simply cameras. In fact the ones that rely solely on cameras absolutely do reportedly perform worse in testing. Musk was insistent that they could cheap out on the types of sensors used in order to make more profit and it shows. I don’t think it’s that tech cannot handle self driving currently. I think that it’s a numbers game where the firms attempting it want to do it as cheaply as possible while promising the moon and stars which they can’t deliver on a cheap budget. Vehicles like Ford’s (Blue Cruise) use all kinds of sensors including radar and GPS to allow for handsfree (not self driving) and it does work. The proofs of concept are out there in the world, but the costs to go from something like that to fill self driving just doesn’t make it feasible for the average car manufacturer.

      • demesisx@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        It is. The machine learning algorithm has maxed out its parameters because Elon decided to get rid of redundancy. The machine learning algorithm had to invent new algorithms to do what redundancy would have easily done in far fewer lines of code. They are out of compute power BECAUSE they decided to cheap out and removed redundancy.

  • masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Oh, so it turns out that “genius billionaires” only exist in comic books?

    Nobody could have seen that one coming!

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      you just angered the entire AI/singularity community. Expect a sternly worded, AI-generated notice.

        • Omgpwnies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          The letter is not here yet you liar

          A sternly worded, AI-generated notice:

          While it’s understandable to be cautious about buying a product based on promised updates, there are several reasons why it can still be a reasonable decision:

          • Trust in the Brand: Many companies have a track record of delivering on their promises. If a brand has a history of providing valuable updates and features, it may be worth trusting that they will continue to do so.

          • Current Value: Even if a product has promised future features, it often provides substantial value in its current state. Users can benefit from the existing features while looking forward to enhancements.

          • Community and Ecosystem: Some products thrive in a vibrant community where users share tips, tricks, and workarounds. The support of an active user base can enhance the product experience even before promised features are released.

          • Long-term Investment: In fast-paced technology markets, many products evolve over time. Buying early can sometimes give users a competitive edge or ensure they are part of the development process, influencing future updates.

          • Risk vs. Reward: While there’s a risk that promised features may not materialize, the potential reward—enhanced functionality, improved performance, or even a price drop due to demand—can make the investment worthwhile.

          • Feedback Opportunities: Early adopters often have a voice in the development of future updates. Engaging with a product before all features are released can allow users to provide valuable feedback that shapes the final product.

          In conclusion, while it’s prudent to be wary of non-existent features, evaluating the overall value, the brand’s reputation, and potential benefits can justify the purchase.

  • Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Can’t wait for the supporters to come out and gas light buyers instead: "uh, well of course they couldn’t. He didn’t lie you just don’t understand tech…!

    I work in IT and people that think like that can fuck themselves. “What do you mean Meta lied by selling your data to a company you didn’t know about. Maybe you should just have never trusted Meta.”

    Stupid fucking boot lickers.

    • CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      To be fair to Meta, they did tell you they might do that. They didn’t lie. They just told you in the find print of an already convoluted and arcane legal document that they know most people would never read, fewer would understand, and no one could do anything to change.

      So unlike Tesla, where they did lie about FSD’s capabilities, and that is at best false advertising but probably actually fraud, Meta at least had a thin veneer of plausible deniability against accusations of being liars when they sold your data to unknown third-parties because they did tell you about it, you just needed a law degree to understand what they were telling you.

  • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    My Leaf can handle itself on the highway and it’s the perfect amount of self driving that I want. I also didn’t need to pay half the price of the leaf for the privilege.

  • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I realized self-driving on roads is impossible for so-called when someone pointed out what human drivers do when there’s like a flock of geese camped out in the middle of the road.

    We know that we should slowly move forward until they get out of the way, including bonking then with the car (gently). Do we want cars deciding that some obstruction in the road is “ok” to hit? I don’t. So what’s the solution? Something other than pure autonomous self driving.

    We can probably have some very high level driver assist. Maybe.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 🏆@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      All the issues with self-driving could be solved if they actually gave a shit about making it work. You don’t let the machine choose. You give it hard fucking rules to follow. It doesn’t need to identify geese, human, ball, dog, child to react differently to each; it should see an obstruction and stop to avoid damaging the fucking object and car, regardless of what it is. They are making it way more complicated than it really has to be.

      • Eranziel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        You are making it far simpler than it actually is. Recognizing what a thing is is the essential first problem. Is that a child, a ball, a goose, a pothole, or a shadow that the cameras see? It would be absurd and an absolute show stopper if the car stopped for dark shadows.

        We take for granted the vast amount that the human brain does in this problem space. The system has to identify and categorize what it’s seeing, otherwise it’s useless.

        That leads to my actual opinion on the technology, which is that it’s going to be nearly impossible to have fully autonomous cars on roads as we know them. It’s fine if everything is normal, which is most of the time. But software can’t recognize and correctly react to the thousands of novel situations that can happen.

        They should be automating trains instead. (Oh wait, we pretty much did that already.)

        • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 🏆@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          It would be absurd and an absolute show stopper if the car stopped for dark shadows.

          That’s why they use LIDAR and not just visual cameras. They don’t need to know the difference between different objects; they just need to know an object is there, in the way, or even moving in a way that could potentially put it in the path of the vehicle.

          They’re making it more complicated by working on both autonomous driving, and also image recognition for use by AI.

          • Eranziel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            I agree that LIDAR or radar are better solutions than image recognition. I mean, that’s literally what those technologies are for.

            But even then, that’s not enough. LIDAR/radar can’t help it identify its lane in inclement weather, drive well on gravel, and so on. These are the kinds of problems where automakers severely downplay the difficulty of the problem and just how much a human driver does.

          • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            my point is that “if there’s an obstruction, stop” means these cars are going to be stopping and requiring human intervention all the time. That’s semi autonomous at best.

            I don’t know if you’ve encountered intransigent geese in your driving adventures, but the only way to deal with them is to slowly drive through the flock until they move out of your way.

            fully autonomous cars are never going to happen without major changes to our roads. we’d be better off investing in more busses and trains.

  • Throw_away_migrator@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Translation: all the times Tesla has vowed that all of its vehicles would soon be capable of fully driving themselves may have been a convenient act of salesmanship that ultimately turned out not to be true."

    There’s a word for that already. Lied. They/He lied.

    No need for 30 words when 2 will do.

    They Lied.

    • bad_alloc@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Maybe one extra world: They lied maliciously.

      Also, they did so repeatedly, over a very long time and while it must have been fully apparent with insider knowledge that this setup cannot work.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        He said it would exist by 2019 and you would be able to use your car as a taxi when not using it. Even made claims about how it will Delray costs. That’s all sorts of other extra business legal words like fraud.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    This smacks of the hyperloop, a false product offered to suppress support of other competing products.

    Id est, a high-capital entity using their power to suppress competiton for smaller (more sincere) interests.

  • pubquiz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is the epitome of American “ingenuity” as it promises, promises, promises, and no-one ever actually delivers.

    Just. Like. Trump.