
Tesla Accused of Deception in Promoting Autopilot - jijojv
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-23/tesla-s-autopilot-promotions-are-deceptive-watchdog-groups-say
======
Animats
The advertising is clearly deceptive. Read their marketing materials:[1]

 _" Build upon Enhanced Autopilot and order Full Self-Driving Capability on
your Tesla. ... All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to
go. If you don’t say anything, the car will look at your calendar and take you
there as the assumed destination or just home if nothing is on the calendar.
Your Tesla will figure out the optimal route, navigate urban streets (even
without lane markings), manage complex intersections with traffic lights, stop
signs and roundabouts, and handle densely packed freeways with cars moving at
high speed. When you arrive at your destination, simply step out at the
entrance and your car will enter park seek mode, automatically search for a
spot and park itself. A tap on your phone summons it back to you."_

Tesla does not have that technology. Not even close. Their cars do not have
the sensor suite to do it. They did a demo back in 2016 of a limited self-
driving capability on quiet roads in Los Altos Hills. They haven't said much
since.

[1] [https://www.tesla.com/autopilot](https://www.tesla.com/autopilot)

~~~
radu_crisan
Did you forget the next paragraph, where they clearly state that it is not yet
available? Firsts words are even in bold: "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. Please
note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for
friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be
permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next
year."

~~~
StavrosK
By the way, this was also very offensive to me:

> Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride
> hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes
> will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be
> released next year.

Why does Tesla get to tell me what to do with my car?

~~~
Someone1234
I guess Tesla believes while under self-drive it is no longer your car. That's
going to be an interesting case for the law/layers in the future.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Tesla owns their software, not you. Why would they enable other ridesharing
companies to profit off of their autopilot work?

If you want to drive your car for Uber, you can. If you want Tesla’s software
to drive it for Uber for you, that isn’t part of the end user license
agreement.

~~~
ams6110
There will probably be court cases over this.

At one time automakers tried to say if you used third party oil filters or
other parts, or if anyone other than the dealer did work, then your warranty
was void. That didn't hold up.

Publishers tried to say that you could not re-sell books and recordings and
software media after you purchased them. That didn't hold up.

Not sure that this will hold up either.

~~~
toomuchtodo
You’re referring to physical parts. To my knowledge, no automaker providers
their software and related tooling to end users (please correct me if I’m
mistake).

You’re going to need a copyright law overhaul to change this status quo.

~~~
Someone1234
And you're referring to what you can physically do with your own vehicle after
you buy it. To my knowledge that has absolutely nothing to do with software
copyright law. I don't understand your basis for arguing that software's
copyright can be used to infringe other rights.

For example can my water heater's manufacturer ban me from washing my dog in
the bath because they own copyright on the software in the thermostat micro-
controller?

If Tesla were going to provide liability insurance, I could absolutely see
them having the ability to limit usage (under that insurance). But software
copyright is an unusual argument.

~~~
toomuchtodo
To use Tesla FSD (full self driving) with a rideshare network, you will need
to hook into the Tesla vehicle onboard software or Tesla’s API. Those actions
will require Tesla’s cooperation. Otherwise, feel free to sit in the car while
it drives itself on autopilot, Tesla isn’t stopping that, only the use of its
full autonomy software (when it arrives) for commercial purposes on rideshare
networks other than its own.

Existing law supports this, and I don’t foresee policy changing in this
regard.

~~~
Someone1234
> To use Tesla FSD (full self driving) with a rideshare network, you will need
> to hook into the Tesla vehicle onboard software or Tesla’s API.

If there is an operator in the vehicle, they could just enter the destination
the old fashioned way.

> Existing law supports this, and I don’t foresee policy changing in this
> regard.

It really doesn't. I'm not sure which "law" you're even referring to.

------
sschueller
I am glad people are starting to see the irresponsibility in some of Teslas
Marketing. It was clear from day one that Teslas autopilot is a glorified lane
assist and therefore should not be sold as some sort of autonomous ready
vehicle.

When I first complained about how autopilot was being marketed here on HN, I
was down voted and told I don't know what autopilot means.

~~~
masklinn
> When I first complained about how autopilot was being marketed here on HN, I
> was down voted and told I don't know what autopilot means.

Had the exact same experience "any commercial airline pilot knows autopilot
doesn't do everything for you !!!one" (which isn't even true, Cat-IIIc ILS
autopilots are basically the equivalent of the car being able to do everything
outside of leaving your garage and fully automated flight from takeoff to
landing included was a thing in 1947:
[https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1947/1947%20-%2...](https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1947/1947%20-%201745.html)).

One could consider it a difference in what people are talking about: Tesla's
tech roughly matches plane autopilot _capabilities_ but not _experience_ ,
because plane autopilot capabilities are nowhere near sufficient for
unassisted autonomous driving (autopilots are assisted by automated ground-
control systems amongst others).

~~~
VBprogrammer
> which isn't even true, Cat-IIIc ILS autopilots are basically the equivalent
> of the car being able to do everything outside of leaving your garage and
> fully automated flight from takeoff to landing included was a thing in 1947

Only a fraction of the worlds runways have Cat-IIIc capability. You could
argue that a reasonable equivalent in the car world is that it can auto-drive
between any two places, so long as those places are on major motorways /
interstates.

Aircraft autopilots also have no way of avoiding traffic, ATC can't control
them directly, and they don't have any automatic ability to do that.

On balance I'd say the abilities of Tesla's autopilot are fairly compared to
an aircraft autopilot.

Unfortunately I think you are correct in that Tesla have marketed the system
well beyond those abilities.

------
cma
In addition to today's Autopilot, Telsa are charging customers $3,000 for a
hypothetical future "Full Self-Driving Capability" feature on the Model 3 and
others.

> "All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go," Tesla's
> ordering page says. "Your Tesla will figure out the optimal route, navigate
> urban streets (even without lane markings), manage complex intersections
> with traffic lights, stop signs and roundabouts, and handle densely packed
> freeways with cars moving at high speed."

This is very likely to be a huge balance sheet liability and probably won't be
a real possibility until the cars are really old and near the end of their
life. They don't give a real timetable so maybe they can get by with not
delivering it for a couple decades, but it seems like that would land them in
some kind of class action legal trouble.

------
salimmadjd
It's not only deceptive but it puts public at risk.

The other day I was on 101 in the evening heading south (this is one the main
highways in San Francisco Bay Area) where I was behind a Tesla on the fast
lane. The Tesla in front of me was acting rather erratic. Fast jolt like
corrections once in a while, etc. So I got annoyed by the erratic movements
and passed the car. As I passed I glanced over. Sure enough, the driver was on
his phone doing something and I'm guessing was relying on the auto pilot.

~~~
madaxe_again
Autopilot is generally pretty smooth - what you describe is more
characteristic of texting while driving, which idiots can achieve in _any_
car.

~~~
sschueller
Yes, but Tesla is giving its owners the false confidence that it is ok to text
while driving because the autopilot will drive the car.

~~~
carlmr
What above comment is saying is that the guy was probably not on autopilot and
steering erratically himself.

------
danso
To be clear, the story here is that a couple of consumer groups have written
the FTC to complain about Tesla. That might be enough to get something
started, but public complaints != formal investigation. That said, the FTC did
successfully order VW to pay $1.2 billion for its diesel shenanigans:

[https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2017/05/feder...](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2017/05/federal-judge-approves-ftc-order-owners-certain-volkswagen-
audi)

I get that people respect and are excited by Musk's vision and work, nevermind
the cars, but I feel even Tesla fans should be able to agree that the current
Autopilot homepage, which is going to be the main info source for Autopilot
for anyone not in possession of the owner's manual.

Someone at Tesla made the deliberate decision to have the page's headline and
very first words be, "Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars", followed by a
paragraph of text about full-self driving, followed by order buttons for Model
S/Model X.

The next thing on that page is a video. It's the first and only video on the
Autopilot page, and it is a 2016 self-driving demo, that Tesla has (as far as
we know) not been able to push to production nor do extensive testing
(assuming they test in California, which requires a mileage report).

When you buy a Tesla, aren't the purchase options for Autopilot and (future)
full-self driving _separate options_ , at a cost of $5000 and $3000,
respectively? Yes, buying AP is required to buy FSD. But my point is that
Autopilot exists as its own separate feature completely independent of FSD.

So to belabor the obvious, why is the only visual demo on Tesla Autopilot a
_2016 alpha demo_ of _full self driving_? On Youtube I can find plenty of
amateur demos of the AP features. What possible reason is there for not
creating separate pages for Autopilot and FSD, other than to have consumers
conflate the two systems?

------
MPSimmons
I'm at probably 2,000 miles in AP on my Model 3, and at this point, I feel
like I'm very knowledgeable about where I can trust AP and where I can't. I do
fear that people will give it too much trust in the beginning, and not try to
learn how it behaves, because then, it's dangerous.

Dying in a Tesla is relatively hard to do, but getting hurt or even just
totaling your car because you didn't understand how AP works is bad (and
dangerous for others, too!)

I feel like maybe they shouldn't turn on AP until TACC has been active for
some period of time, so that you can get used to the car and how it behaves.
Even now, I am sometimes surprised (like the odd behavior when stopped traffic
is ahead of you a ways, and the car right in front of you changes out of your
line - your car doesn't notice the stopped traffic, so you have to stop
yourself or you would slam into the stopped cars). I have to assume that, at
some point, the front facing camera will supplement the radar and say, "hey,
that looks like stopped traffic - I should stop", but I can understand, from a
software development perspective, why that's a hard problem.

~~~
confiscate
why would that be a hard problem? Shouldn't it be easy for the radar to detect
if there are stopped obstacles ahead?

I am not familiar with AP tech. So would appreciate if someone can explain why
it's hard to detect stopped objects using radar.

~~~
drunken-serval
> Shouldn't it be easy for the radar to detect if there are stopped obstacles
> ahead?

No. It's very difficult. Radar reflects off of everything. The only way to get
a useful signal is to look for things that are moving at a different speed
than you, like something moving relative to the road. So the radar software
filters out all signals that have the same speed at the road ahead.

This means the radar won't see anything stopped on the road, because it's
filtering out a huge number of returns from the road. This gets even worse
because Radar reflects very differently based off the material. It goes right
through plastic, water (humans) absorb it.

Even if you could try to read through the noise of the road, Radar doesn't
have enough resolution to tell the difference between the road going uphill
and a stopped firetruck.

~~~
confiscate
Thanks for the explanation.

"radar won't see anything stopped on the road, because it's filtering out a
huge number of returns from the road"

what does that mean? sorry i am still confused.

Isn't the whole point of radar to detect objects around you?

It shouldn't matter if the object is in the road ahead, or on the side of the
road, right? Because they are all obstacles that the car should avoid, no?

Like, a stopped car in front of you, vs a tree next to you on the side of the
road, are both things the software should avoid, and NOT filter out, right?

------
synaesthesisx
Tesla seriously jumped the gun in marketing their partial autonomy as
"Autopilot" when it's still level 3 autonomy at best (requires a human driver
to intervene when necessary). Until we leap over the 'uncanny valley' of
partial automation and have level 4 autonomy available it would be
disingenuous to call such a feature "autopilot".

~~~
icc97
The frustrating part I find is that autopilot for pilots is actually a
reasonably good description. Pilots are paid and trained to be alert all the
time that autopilot is on.

It's also well known that an autopilot in a plane is no AI, it's simply
following a course.

But I definitely agree it's a disingenuous name. It primarily gives the
impression that you can take your hands off. So people will definitely get
distracted for up to 6s which from the Uber crash is all it took. Plus beyond
that you can have one hand on the steering wheel and be doing anything you
want.

It's quite damming that even Uber were humble enough to realise how badly
their system had failed with the fatal crash but Tesla is doubling down
releasing PR statements that try to spin the statistics. I've seen interviews
with Musk discussing the crash where he really seems not to be particularly
bothered.

I can see Tesla putting back self driving by years if a legal clamp down
comes. They are the company with by far the most miles driven with a level 3
system, but there's nothing at the moment to suggest that there won't be other
crashes in Tesla autopilot cars that won't skew the statistics.

I've heard it said that self-driving cars will have to prove they're 10x
safer. That takes 1B miles per death to prove. If self-driving is deemed
illegal on open roads because of Tesla's recklessness it'll take much longer
to prove that it is safer.

~~~
stordoff
For me, it comes down to the fact that replicating the functionality does not
replicate the experience. Tesla's Autopilot may well replicate the
functionality of an aviation autopilot, but a plane will have less factors to
consider (such as proximity of other traffic) and if something does go
wrong/there is something the autopilot can't handle there, in most cases, is
time for a human pilot to take over. Getting the same level of functionality
that works in the air _will_ cause a crash on the ground, but calling it by
the same name is going to make people think the _experience_ is the same (i.e.
that the vehicle is fine left to its own devices for at least some period of
time -- which would require a significantly more complex system on the
ground).

~~~
icc97
Yeah pilots don't use autopilot when taxiing in an airport.

The equivalent environment of a plane's autopilot for a car is being on an
empty race track. I'm sure Autopilot works well there.

~~~
w0utert
An empty racetrack that is perfectly mapped out in advance, at that.

Plane autopilot just automates the control inputs/outputs that are needed to
follow a predefined flight plan. For anything beyond cruising or following
pre-programmed flight patterns like holding loops, it needs guidance from
systems on the ground that have no other purpose than telling the plane
exactly where the runway is and how to descend to it. There’s not a single
system involved that uses vision-based methods and/or any form of object
detection. Even the most advanced plane autopilot will not be able to land the
plane if the airport systems are down.

So in a way, the level of autonomy that Tesla’s autopilot provides is not that
far from plane autopilot. That’s clearly not how Tesla PR sells it though.

------
jijojv
The advocacy groups say Tesla’s promotions of Autopilot suggest otherwise and
are deceptive. Among the examples cited in the letter is Tesla’s Autopilot
website, which proclaims Tesla vehicles have “full self-driving hardware” and
contains a video posted that when played begins with text reading “the person
in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing
anything. The car is driving itself.”

------
sagebird
I agree that deceptive marketing should be punished.

With that out of the way, I am genuinely curious:

Has you or anyone you know ever believed that Tesla's have autopilot?

Anyone I have ever spoken to basically thinks that Teslas have a feature to
keep you in the lane -- an advanced cruise control -- and that you must have
your hands near the wheel.

Please note that even if nobody thought Teslas have autopilot, I still think
deceptive marketing should be punished. I'm simply trying to gather some
perspective from others, if this is actually a thought that is out there in
the wild.

------
agumonkey
Good, I like most of what Musk did, but always had issues with bringing semi
capable drive assist that clearly made some accident possible. Not causing it,
enabling irresponsible behavior and coating their product with glitter in the
same time. I don't think it's right for companies to sell that sort of things.

------
rifung
Frankly I'm surprised it took this long to happen. It's a bit sad that people
had to die when we could potentially have prevented it from happening.

------
te_chris
This is obvious once you use it.

------
jaimex2
what ever happened to that coast to coast demo?

------
pavlov
I used to admire what Musk did at Tesla; I even put the $1k down for a Model 3
reservation on the first day over two years ago.

Since then I've lost my faith in his honesty. He's been consistently and
intentionally misrepresenting what Tesla can deliver and when.

Worse, he is taking a page from Donald Trump's playbook. Faced with negative
media coverage, Musk is now attacking the media and wants to build a bubble of
alternative truth controlled by himself.

Rather than fix Tesla's communications, he wants to build some kind of website
where "the public can rate the core truth of any article" and shame individual
journalists:

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/999367582271422464](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/999367582271422464)

Can he be so naïve that he expects an Internet public to arrive at a consensus
on complex issues? Of course not, he hasn't been in a coma for the past twenty
years. His proposed "Muskopedia" would just end up controlled by online
partisans devoted to embellishing his takes.

(Reminds me that I should probably take my $1k out. The Model 3 ship date for
Europe is still a year away.)

~~~
ameister14
He's been overestimating deliverables for way longer than 2 years

~~~
pavlov
But I wasn't paying enough attention. To my knowledge he also wasn't trying to
build a private media bubble until now.

------
edshiro
Repeat after me: "Autopilot does not mean autonomous".

------
sureaboutthis
And so it begins, the tearing down of a highly successful company.

~~~
AlexandrB
> And so it begins, the tearing down of a highly successful company.

Alright. I think it's important to be clear what Tesla is. It's certainly a
very _promising_ company, but highly successful? That it is not - at least not
yet. Tesla is _not_ profitable, and without electric car subsidies it would be
in even worse condition. It has a lot of promise, but has yet to deliver on
that promise IMHO.

------
dayaz36
I like how the only pro Tesla comment in this entire thread is grayed out at
the bottom. Not suspicious at all...

------
grizzles
Tesla's lawyers would have this covered. It sounds to me like a bunch of
shorts who are sweating Telsa's recent moves to cut production costs and raise
the price of the Model S. I hope they get their comeuppance.

~~~
dogma1138
Tesla’s lawyers should’ve advised against marketing a glorified ADAS (and AP
2.0/2.5 was even a pretty bad ADAS for quite a long time) as an autonomous
driving solution.

They market it as it could be a RoboTaxi, Musk has been saying “autonomous
driving is a solved problem” for 4 years now at every opportunity he gets this
isn’t really ideal.

Tesla’s marketing a side the real problem is the concept of Level 3 autonomy
in the first place (on the open roads). Humans can’t operate in a “hands off
only” mode and it’s either all in or all out.

I’m really hoping that we could get to a good real world all conditions L4/5
(these are the same level of autonomy) before level 3 ones kill enough people
to push back autonomous driving 3 decades.

Don’t get me wrong in controlled, restricted and enclosed environments for
example truck yards, ports, large factories, airports, power stations, mines
etc. Level 3 makes a lot of sense if you have predictable routes where trained
operators know when they can be hands off and when they cannot be.

But this doesn’t and will never work on real roads with real people because
eventually everyone gets “comfortable” with such a feature especially when it
appears much more capable than it actually is and when Musk and many in the
Tesla community make it sound like the only reason why your Tesla isn’t
working for Uber whole you are at work is because of pesky regulation.

~~~
Animats
Tesla only has SAE 2, stay in lane and brake for obstacles (sometimes). They
did a few videos of hands-off self-driving in controlled conditions on quiet
roads, so they were trying for Level 3, but never really got there.

