9 ms·

In addition to your points I think GM also acted with more integrity in naming the feature. Tesla calling it autopilot is irresponsible and dangerous.

drcross 9y ago
Tesla's autopilot is functionally identical to a boat or plane autopilot. If a pilot or skipper relied upon autopilot as a full self driving system they would most likely be dead before the end of their trip.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  Something like 92% of Americans don't own a boat, let alone one fancy enough to have an autopilot. 99.9% of Americans don't own a plane. As such, most Americans have no exposure to an autopilot and its functionality beyond perhaps having heard the name. Tesla themselves muddle the waters. On https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot, it states "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver." Further down, it talks about "Full Self-Driving Capability", "All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go.", "The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.", etc. It's not shocking folks have gotten the impression it's a self-driving feature instead of a fancy cruise control.
  - Piskvorrr 9y ago
    The second point is salient - theoretical hardware capability is still a long shot from actual Level 5 autonomous driving.
    - Jesus_Jones 9y ago
      Yes exactly, they don't clarify at all that the full driving capability is after they finish the hardware. and they have taken forever. I'm glad I have a hw1 tesla. it works, not full automation but a lot of good features like tacc
  - chc 9y ago
    Full self-driving is a vaporware feature separate from the current Autopilot. It's confusing that they would advertise a feature that doesn't exist, but it's not like they're claiming Autopilot works that way. More importantly, the page where you configure your car explains the distinction very clearly (and charges extra for full self-driving, even though it doesn't exist!), so I doubt anyone has actually bought a Tesla thinking that Autopilot was full self-driving.
    - FireBeyond 9y ago
      From that same page: "Tesla’s Enhanced Autopilot software has begun rolling out and features will continue to be introduced as validation is completed, subject to regulatory approval. " "Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval." The latter paragraph is very vaguely worded and certainly not very clear that it is non existent as yet.
      - chc 9y ago
        Yes, I said in the comment you're replying to that Tesla's advertising for that nonexistent feature was confusing. I'm not sure why you're repeating it back to me. But at any rate, this thread isn't about whether it's clear that the Full Self-Driving software is vaporware. The question is whether people are buying Teslas under the misunderstanding that regular Autopilot is the same thing as Full Self-Driving.
      - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
        It is complete vaporware. Their radar sensors depend on a hokey whitelist database to avoid triggering false positives on "problematic" static structures like billboards and overpasses. Tesla deserves to be sued into the ground for daring to make such audacious claims. It is complete lunacy to believe that this is acceptable for autonomous driving in a dynamic real world environment.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    I was going to write something nastier. But really. Those would seem to be, at best, wildly optimistic claims. And at worst simply counter-factual.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  Tesla's autopilot function is horribly named and not at all identical to plane autopilot. Modern autopilots are actually fully capable of handling takeoff, flight, and landing without interaction from the pilot. However, pilots continue to handle takeoff and landing procedures to maintain skills in those areas as generally an autopilot failure during those times would not be recoverable.
  - Piskvorrr 9y ago
    Capable of handling _each_ of the functions (NOT switching between the modes - "sit on tarmac, punch in destination, go take a nap"; plus I'm not entirely sure if the feature you describe as autotakeoff even exists outside Hollywood), exclusively on the happy path with strict minima, with pilots required to take over at once in case of any irregularity. Highly convenient, but not a self-flying miracle.
    - gamblor956 9y ago
      The features I have described are available in the Dreamliner and the Airbus 380, and have been more than a Hollywood fantasy for at least a decade... Self-flying isn't as difficult as people think it is. There are fewer obstacles and risks to deal with.
      - Piskvorrr 9y ago
        Nope. There are features such as thrust assymetry compensation, and you could technically engage the autopilot as low as 200 ft AGL, but I maintain that there is no automatic takeoff available on commercial aircraft (there's something related on catapult-launched fighter jets, but that's quite another world). If you're claiming a feature exists "in the Dreamliner and the Airbus 380...over a decade" - well, [citation-needed], then: all the sources that I've managed to find are unanimous that it doesn't, e.g. http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/ http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/ To quote the pilot above: "That fantasy insists on outpacing reality is perhaps symptomatic of our infatuation with technology, and the belief that we can compute our way out of every dilemma or complication."
- Negitivefrags 9y ago
  Justifications to real life are not really relevant because that isn't what regular people know. What "autopilot" means is what you see in the movies. When a computerised voice in a sci fi movie says "Autopilot engaged" what does that usually mean?
  - Piskvorrr 9y ago
    That you're spending so much time in fiction that you are losing a grip on reality. There's also teleportation, flying broomsticks and miles-long star dreadnoughts in those stories; surely you don't expect those as well?
    - Negitivefrags 9y ago
      Nobody is purporting to sell me those things.
      - Piskvorrr 9y ago
        I do agree that Tesla seems to be doing their utmost to say something akin to "it could be autonomous, if if if" - and that an average consumer could read that as "it is autonomous, full stop."
        dagw 9y ago
        I do agree that Tesla seems to be doing their utmost to say something akin to "it could be autonomous, if if if" They are not doing their utmost. They're doing the minimum necessary to avoid getting sued. Their sales people and marketing material are pushing autonomous hard, and being very quiet about the limitations. If you're not following the tech news on these issues and only going by what the sales guy at the dealership told you, then the confusion is very reasonable.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - QasimK 9y ago
- Angostura 9y ago
  ... so you can pretty much go to sleep, assuming you aren't taking off or landing. Got it.
- bonestamp2 9y ago
  True. Although, that ignores the fact that even hobbyist pilots and skippers tend to have far more training and discipline than the average motorist. The name might be accurate, but the self awareness of the name is terrible.
Piskvorrr 9y ago
Before they were in cars, autopilots in planes were there to keep the plane on the approximate course, in good conditions, with the pilot expected to supervise the operation and take over at immediate notice. Difference?
- IntronExon 9y ago
  Yes, almost no Americans are pilots, and few own boats. The name seems deliberately misleading to most people, and in a safety-critical application no less.
  - Piskvorrr 9y ago
    That much is possible. (OTOH, the phrase "(don't expect any thinking now,) I'm on autopilot" seems to be in common use as well.
- Steko 9y ago
  The difference is comparable to the difference in licensing requirements for driving cars and piloting airplanes.
unclebucknasty 9y ago
Agreed. I'd go further though and say the semi-autonomous feature itself is fundamentally flawed. It's a mishmash of what the car will do and what the human is expected to do; the whole while making the human responsible even if the car fails in doing its part. So, I don't buy into their disclaiming of responsibility if the car fails in what it is doing autonomously. That is, it's one thing if a safety measure fails to engage (for instance, the car fails to brake to avoid an accident while still under the human's control). However, it's a different matter when the car offers to actively perform a function in lieu of the human, then fails in properly performing it. By the mere existence and offer of the function, the company is essentially making a claim as to the vehicle's fitness for that function and asking the human to trust that claim by assigning control to the vehicle. No amount of verbiage that tries to assign responsibility back to the human can offset the fact that the vehicle was under its own control when it failed.

drcross 9y ago

Tesla's autopilot is functionally identical to a boat or plane autopilot. If a pilot or skipper relied upon autopilot as a full self driving system they would most likely be dead before the end of their trip.

ceejayoz 9y ago
Something like 92% of Americans don't own a boat, let alone one fancy enough to have an autopilot. 99.9% of Americans don't own a plane. As such, most Americans have no exposure to an autopilot and its functionality beyond perhaps having heard the name. Tesla themselves muddle the waters. On https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot, it states "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver." Further down, it talks about "Full Self-Driving Capability", "All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go.", "The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.", etc. It's not shocking folks have gotten the impression it's a self-driving feature instead of a fancy cruise control.
- Piskvorrr 9y ago
  The second point is salient - theoretical hardware capability is still a long shot from actual Level 5 autonomous driving.
  - Jesus_Jones 9y ago
    Yes exactly, they don't clarify at all that the full driving capability is after they finish the hardware. and they have taken forever. I'm glad I have a hw1 tesla. it works, not full automation but a lot of good features like tacc
- chc 9y ago
  Full self-driving is a vaporware feature separate from the current Autopilot. It's confusing that they would advertise a feature that doesn't exist, but it's not like they're claiming Autopilot works that way. More importantly, the page where you configure your car explains the distinction very clearly (and charges extra for full self-driving, even though it doesn't exist!), so I doubt anyone has actually bought a Tesla thinking that Autopilot was full self-driving.
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    From that same page: "Tesla’s Enhanced Autopilot software has begun rolling out and features will continue to be introduced as validation is completed, subject to regulatory approval. " "Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval." The latter paragraph is very vaguely worded and certainly not very clear that it is non existent as yet.
    - chc 9y ago
      Yes, I said in the comment you're replying to that Tesla's advertising for that nonexistent feature was confusing. I'm not sure why you're repeating it back to me. But at any rate, this thread isn't about whether it's clear that the Full Self-Driving software is vaporware. The question is whether people are buying Teslas under the misunderstanding that regular Autopilot is the same thing as Full Self-Driving.
    - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
      It is complete vaporware. Their radar sensors depend on a hokey whitelist database to avoid triggering false positives on "problematic" static structures like billboards and overpasses. Tesla deserves to be sued into the ground for daring to make such audacious claims. It is complete lunacy to believe that this is acceptable for autonomous driving in a dynamic real world environment.
- ghaff 9y ago
  I was going to write something nastier. But really. Those would seem to be, at best, wildly optimistic claims. And at worst simply counter-factual.
gamblor956 9y ago
Tesla's autopilot function is horribly named and not at all identical to plane autopilot. Modern autopilots are actually fully capable of handling takeoff, flight, and landing without interaction from the pilot. However, pilots continue to handle takeoff and landing procedures to maintain skills in those areas as generally an autopilot failure during those times would not be recoverable.
- Piskvorrr 9y ago
  Capable of handling _each_ of the functions (NOT switching between the modes - "sit on tarmac, punch in destination, go take a nap"; plus I'm not entirely sure if the feature you describe as autotakeoff even exists outside Hollywood), exclusively on the happy path with strict minima, with pilots required to take over at once in case of any irregularity. Highly convenient, but not a self-flying miracle.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    The features I have described are available in the Dreamliner and the Airbus 380, and have been more than a Hollywood fantasy for at least a decade... Self-flying isn't as difficult as people think it is. There are fewer obstacles and risks to deal with.
    - Piskvorrr 9y ago
      Nope. There are features such as thrust assymetry compensation, and you could technically engage the autopilot as low as 200 ft AGL, but I maintain that there is no automatic takeoff available on commercial aircraft (there's something related on catapult-launched fighter jets, but that's quite another world). If you're claiming a feature exists "in the Dreamliner and the Airbus 380...over a decade" - well, [citation-needed], then: all the sources that I've managed to find are unanimous that it doesn't, e.g. http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/ http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/ To quote the pilot above: "That fantasy insists on outpacing reality is perhaps symptomatic of our infatuation with technology, and the belief that we can compute our way out of every dilemma or complication."
Negitivefrags 9y ago
Justifications to real life are not really relevant because that isn't what regular people know. What "autopilot" means is what you see in the movies. When a computerised voice in a sci fi movie says "Autopilot engaged" what does that usually mean?
- Piskvorrr 9y ago
  That you're spending so much time in fiction that you are losing a grip on reality. There's also teleportation, flying broomsticks and miles-long star dreadnoughts in those stories; surely you don't expect those as well?
  - Negitivefrags 9y ago
    Nobody is purporting to sell me those things.
    - Piskvorrr 9y ago
      I do agree that Tesla seems to be doing their utmost to say something akin to "it could be autonomous, if if if" - and that an average consumer could read that as "it is autonomous, full stop."
      - dagw 9y ago
        I do agree that Tesla seems to be doing their utmost to say something akin to "it could be autonomous, if if if" They are not doing their utmost. They're doing the minimum necessary to avoid getting sued. Their sales people and marketing material are pushing autonomous hard, and being very quiet about the limitations. If you're not following the tech news on these issues and only going by what the sales guy at the dealership told you, then the confusion is very reasonable.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - QasimK 9y ago
Angostura 9y ago
... so you can pretty much go to sleep, assuming you aren't taking off or landing. Got it.
bonestamp2 9y ago
True. Although, that ignores the fact that even hobbyist pilots and skippers tend to have far more training and discipline than the average motorist. The name might be accurate, but the self awareness of the name is terrible.

Piskvorrr 9y ago

Before they were in cars, autopilots in planes were there to keep the plane on the approximate course, in good conditions, with the pilot expected to supervise the operation and take over at immediate notice. Difference?

IntronExon 9y ago
Yes, almost no Americans are pilots, and few own boats. The name seems deliberately misleading to most people, and in a safety-critical application no less.
- Piskvorrr 9y ago
  That much is possible. (OTOH, the phrase "(don't expect any thinking now,) I'm on autopilot" seems to be in common use as well.
Steko 9y ago
The difference is comparable to the difference in licensing requirements for driving cars and piloting airplanes.

unclebucknasty 9y ago

Agreed. I'd go further though and say the semi-autonomous feature itself is fundamentally flawed. It's a mishmash of what the car will do and what the human is expected to do; the whole while making the human responsible even if the car fails in doing its part. So, I don't buy into their disclaiming of responsibility if the car fails in what it is doing autonomously. That is, it's one thing if a safety measure fails to engage (for instance, the car fails to brake to avoid an accident while still under the human's control). However, it's a different matter when the car offers to actively perform a function in lieu of the human, then fails in properly performing it. By the mere existence and offer of the function, the company is essentially making a claim as to the vehicle's fitness for that function and asking the human to trust that claim by assigning control to the vehicle. No amount of verbiage that tries to assign responsibility back to the human can offset the fact that the vehicle was under its own control when it failed.