-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
That's basically an anti-technology argument across the board.
"I used to be decent at math. Then I started using a calculator. Then a spreadsheet. Now my math skills suck. We should avoid developing computer technology because humans will become less good at tasks that computers can do for them."
- - - Updated - - -
You're making an assumption that I don't agree with. You're assuming you can't have a system that never needs driver involvement to be as safe as your average human driver. Once you cross that threshold (and for Elon a few steps above that threshold) then your concern vanishes. If human involvement is not required for equivalent safety then the problem is solved.
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
That's not a fair appraisal of what I said. I did not say that people would be bad drivers when not using Autopilot because they're used to Autopilot (though that may be true to some extent). I said that people would be bad at operating Autopilot. Because they need to fulfill a role that people are not used to. Specifically, passively operating a vehicle while still being responsible. That doesn't mean that the technology shouldn't move forward, but that it's a problem that you have to solve.
No I'm not making that assumption. I'm making the assumption that Tesla's Autopilot needs to be better than the average human driver in order to be accepted by the public and regulators. Electric Vehicles have to be safer than ICE vehicles to be accepted. Note what happened with the battery fires, even though ICE fires are common and dangerous.
The average human driver isn't very good. Do you really think that people will accept just equaling that with something like Autopilot as good enough? I can pretty much assure you that the first accident that results in someone dying from this system is going to be much bigger news than the battery fires. People will point fingers at the automation and not the driver (even though the driver still should be responsible).
I recall hearing Elon saying a year or so ago something to the effect of "Autonomous cars have to be orders of magnitude safer drivers than humans before they can be allowed on the road" (sorry but can't provide a link to substantiate that Elon quote). While Autopilot is nothing like an autonomous car, one could extrapolate his statement to "Tesla Autopilot has to be safer than most human drivers for use in the situations we are designing it for". And I think it will be. The problem is that people will trust it too much, not pay enough attention, and not be ready to intervene when needed. I'm in no hurry to get Autopilot. I do like the idea of collision avoidance where the car reacts to an unexpected situation faster than I could to mitigate the damage. Other than that, I'm fine to do the steering.
I think what you're reading in this thread is about owners wanting Tesla to meet the expectations that Tesla, itself, had set.
How about publishing an open letter in a high profile newspaper or publication? That would surely get attention, and Tesla would not be able to ignore it.
I'm very familiar with the user interface problems associated with autopilot. I've been a pilot, and flight instructor, and check airman, off and on for the last 30 years. This user interface model has been used in aircraft since the 1930s.
You hear occasionally that autopilot use, or GPS, or (probably VOR) made us worse pilots than in the "old days." That might well be true, but they have also resulted in continuous improvement of the aviation safety record, while operating in an increasingly congested and regulated environment.
Any pilot with even a low level of experience has had the autopilot disengage just when the workload was high, or head off in a direction that they didn't intend, forcing a disconnect. A few, very few, accidents have been attributed to this, but it's quite rare.
Now, you'll probably tell me that this isn't a good analogy, because a car can require immediate attention, while an airplane is unlikely to hit anything in the next few seconds. First of all, that's not entirely true. Second, even when it is true, an aircraft requires more skill to operate, particularly in instrument conditions, than a car does, and can quickly get out of control. And, in the case of the car, if you take your hands off the wheel for 1-5-10 seconds, do you crash? Not typically.
I also think it's unlikely that there will be many accidents, let alone deaths, attributable to even an imperfect autopilot implementation. Sure, if there is even the slightest possibility, the technology will be blamed for the accident, but just as with the fires these will be very rare.
You hear occasionally that autopilot use, or GPS, or (probably VOR) made us worse pilots than in the "old days." That might well be true, but they have also resulted in continuous improvement of the aviation safety record, while operating in an increasingly congested and regulated environment.
Any pilot with even a low level of experience has had the autopilot disengage just when the workload was high, or head off in a direction that they didn't intend, forcing a disconnect. A few, very few, accidents have been attributed to this, but it's quite rare.
Now, you'll probably tell me that this isn't a good analogy, because a car can require immediate attention, while an airplane is unlikely to hit anything in the next few seconds. First of all, that's not entirely true. Second, even when it is true, an aircraft requires more skill to operate, particularly in instrument conditions, than a car does, and can quickly get out of control. And, in the case of the car, if you take your hands off the wheel for 1-5-10 seconds, do you crash? Not typically.
I also think it's unlikely that there will be many accidents, let alone deaths, attributable to even an imperfect autopilot implementation. Sure, if there is even the slightest possibility, the technology will be blamed for the accident, but just as with the fires these will be very rare.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
In my opinion, that's a terrible idea. The FUD group would be all over it. I can see it now as front page news on Fox's website. All the good Tesla has done would be gone in an instant. I can see the headlines now: "Never before have car owners been so upset with an automaker to place a full page ad voicing their displeasure. Even defects leading to injuries and deaths, by other automakers, and recalls, did not cause owners to do this, yada, yada, yada..."
Again, please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
gizmoboy
Member
Agreed, or be used by people with an agenda to harm Tesla's reputation.
(Look at how Apple gets bad press for beta software...)
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I would hope that if a good number of customers wrote privately, Tesla also wouldn't ignore that.
As much as I'm annoyed with Tesla over this and a couple of other issues, I think embarrassing the company publicly is not the way to go.
Mark Z
Active Member
Every day of delay means a better product for us. Everyone who has the AutoPilot hardware should be thrilled that it was available so you do NOT need to buy a new car after the software is properly engineered and tested for your safety.
(I ordered an X over 3 1/2 years ago and would not want Tesla Motors to rush the car to market until they know the manufactured vehicle will result in the best experience and performance. Perfection takes time and the final product will still get better over time! Another benefit of the wait for "X" has been driving over 50,000 wonderful miles in Model "S".)
(I ordered an X over 3 1/2 years ago and would not want Tesla Motors to rush the car to market until they know the manufactured vehicle will result in the best experience and performance. Perfection takes time and the final product will still get better over time! Another benefit of the wait for "X" has been driving over 50,000 wonderful miles in Model "S".)
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
There's one massive distinction here though. Becoming a licensed pilot is much harder than becoming a licensed driver.
Sure, but the result can be knee-jerk regulation, which might set the bar so high as to make it impossible to allow Autopilot to work on the existing fleet. The fires problem was solved by armoring the battery to make them very unlikely. That's a far easier problem to solve than making sure the driver is paying attention.
It has happened before:
Tesla Owners' Full-Page Newspaper Ad Gets Elon Musk's Attention
Discussed here:
Open Letter to Elon Musk
Max*;1082601Enabled is a pretty clear to me. If it needs to be [U said:
If you drive an MS40, an update to 60 kWh capacity can be enabled with an OTA update. If you didn't pay for Supercharger access on your MS60, such access can be enabled with an OTA update. Neither of these is a future offering nor an unreleased feature. The term "enabled with OTA updates" does not at all imply, at least to me, that it is an unreleased feature.
OTA updates are future improvements in the firmware. What you are referring to with 40 to 60 kWh, supercharger activation, and also autopilot activation for cars that didn't pay for it at purchase is OTA activation of the feature, not an OTA update. But I can understand how people not familiar with Tesla may not understand the difference in terminology.
Taking Tesla at its word for what it publishes on its web site has nothing to do with intelligence.
Obvious to whom? Not everyone watches Elon's talks, or spends time in the forums. Indeed, most consumers don't do that.
What if you aren't someone who has tracked Tesla since inception? I didn't track Toyota since its inception when I bought my Highlander, and I based my decision on the representations made by Toyota on its web site and according to how the features were described. I didn't track Volkswagen since its inception when I bought my Jetta, I based my decision on what VW stated on its web site. Same with Acura and all of my other cars. A consumer should not be required to do what you are suggesting to get a complete picture of the product he or she is buying.
Tesla is playing outside of the "early adopter" sandbox, and it needs to step up.
- - - Updated - - -
Tesla will likely not change direction with regard to over-promising and under-deliveirng until it is put on the spot somehow. No matter how you do it, the media can pounce. And over something like this, they probably should. If Tesla gets a very public black eye over this, then it's very likely Tesla's behavior will change quickly moving forward. And that's a good thing.
By the way, the open letter to Tesla was already done once and without the negatives that you have cited.
- - - Updated - - -
True, but those owners would be posting about such a letter here, and the media would pick up on it anyway.
- - - Updated - - -
Thank you, yes, that was my point. All of us here, we are the exception rather than the rule. We live in a bubble where we understand Tesla's context. But Tesla is selling to people who are not early adopters and who aren't interested in joining the cult of Tesla. That's where Tesla is going to get burned.
Sosius
a.k.a. Uptown Frunk
Agreed. Assuming people have spent dozens or hundreds of hours researching a company and its management before buying a car is unrealistic. That being said, why can't Tesla just tweak the wording on its website to eliminate the present tense where appropriate and to clarify what activation over time means. This isn't rocket science.
Not to put to fine a point on it but...
I'm pretty active around here (well, mostly) and I still don't know if bonnie's Model X will be delivered or my Gen 3 reservation will be made before Lane Keeping works on my inventory P85D that I took delivery of in April. My current guess is Gen3, bonnie's, then Lane Keeping which is likely accurate but depressing.
scott jones
Member
Sometimes, sales & marketing verbiage can seem like rocket science to an engineer.
There's a simple reason they don't want to clarify their website... Money they don't want to!
they sell more cars by offering something people want even if they don't have it.
And in case somebody says they would NOT do that!!!... Think about it this way:
if they made an incorrect statement on their website saying, they DONT currently have certain features which THEY DO, they would be so quick to change that! But because this one favors increased sales and marketing, they are not quick to take action! Hell, they are turtle slow, and that's an insult to turtles!
Remember when they had the tech packaging fiasco when they included the liftgate with features like lighting, etc which forced customers to pay for items they didn't want to get the item they did want? Well they changed that in a day or two because of the major backlash and fear of losing sales?
apparently this time they're not afraid.
my guess is they intentionally wrote the website in present tense but really did not think it would take this long to get all the updates out and now they don't want to change it for fear of looking stupid
Last edited:
Similar threads
