Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

Mango ,

They're faking it until they make it!

Snapz ,

Interesting. https://youtu.be/rPt9hAC24MI?feature=shared

fne8w2ah ,

Fuck the Musk and his inflated ego.

werefreeatlast ,

Sorry Tesla but every captcha about bicycles and street lights was just too good an opportunity to be bad! LOL ... bicycle! 🚲 Nah! That's just 🛣️ road! Continue!

Thorny_Insight ,

That's not how FSD works. It's a neural net trained on millions of hours of video content of good human driving. Nowhere in the code is even specified what a bicycle is.

SkyezOpen ,

Is that why it runs stop signs?

aniki ,

It was millions of hours of BMW owners driving.

derGottesknecht ,

You train neuronal networks with labeled data and those captchas are used to create the labels. Its not specified in the code what a bicycle is, but in the training data.

arin ,

Finally?

Thorny_Insight ,

Ironically this comes at a time when FSD is getting so good that the car does indeed practically drive itself. It's still level 2 but the amount of driver interventions reguired to reach your destination has dropped to near zero. I don't think we're very far at all from an actual robotaxi and the ability to use your personal vehicle as such.

zik ,

Meanwhile Mercedes has already reached level 3.

Thorny_Insight ,

The link you didn't open has a video comparing Tesla and Mercedes driving the exact same route on autopilot.

sebinspace ,

Still ignoring the fact that this technology was advertised to arrive by 2017. It’s seven years overdue.

That’s false advertising.

Aceticon ,

It’s seven years overdue so far.

FIFY.

Thorny_Insight ,

I don't know what this has to do with what I said. It's long overdue, yes. It was false advertising, yes. It's incredibly good nowdays, yes. Several things can be true at the same time.

sebinspace ,

Forgive the imperfect analogy, but if my wife left me because I wan an alcoholic, and I came back seven years later saying “I’m sober now!”, you think she’s going to take me back or have moved on with her fucking life?

Thorny_Insight ,

Yeah I have no idea what you're trying to tell me. You're not going to buy a Tesla because they lied about FSD a decade earlier? Ok. Good for you?

Blackmist ,

Can't wait to take a real life Johnnycab.

Exactly the same price as a normal taxi (if not higher, because there's no competition left), but now all the money goes to needy Silicon Valley trillionaires, rather than some greedy low life taxi driver who just wants to waste that money on food and rent, rather than lovely sustaining growth.

Thorny_Insight ,

That taxi might just aswell belong to a a private individual who instead of leaving their car at the company parking lot for the whole day sent it doing ridesharing.

Aceticon , (edited )

As I explained somebody else the other day, software development follows a 90/10 rule in that 90% of the work that needs doing is in the last 10% of the result and these guys have been stuck for years at the "almost there" stage.

It's perfectly possible to hack your way for the first easy 90% of the result but that software development "method" won't get you up to the 99.999% levels of reliability (or whatever number of nines the regulations demand) needed for a FSD system to be certified as autonomous.

So no amount of people showing full self drive working without problems sometimes or even most of the time (or as you say, "practically") will show that Testla has the capability of doing the last 10% (which, remember, is most of the work), whilst them having been stuck at pretty much the current level for years is a good indication that they're probably stuck down a dead-end that will never lead to something that can achieve the necessary reliability to be certified as an autonomous system.

Also, in my professional opinion as a very senior software engineer, looking from the outside and judging by many software and UI design choices in their vehicles, they're unlikelly to actually be competent enough to pull it off and seem to be following a Tech Startup model (and I can tell you from experience in that Industry and others, that Startups are usually amateur hour, every hour of the day, every day of the week, every week of the year compared to all of the rest) hence me mentioning above the possibility that they've might have "hacked" (i.e. mainly gone at it by trial and error) their way up the first 90%.

unreasonabro ,

bye bye elon

Trilobite ,

He is rich all there will be is a minimal fine

NotMyOldRedditName , (edited )

The part of the claim here where they wouldn't upgrade the cameras is a part that I'm highly interested in.

I don't expect tesla to upgrade any hardware beyond what they believe is required which they claim hardware 3 is.

But the moment a hardware 3 car can't flip a switch and become level 3/4 SAE autonomous and a hardware 4, 5, 6 or whatever it is if/when solved is required, I think there's a massive lawsuit there unless Tesla somehow upgrades the cars.

Suddenly the car didn't come with the hardware required and can't function as described, especially back when it was announced.

Tesla will say, oh we'll get it working on HW3 next year... and try to kick the can to avoid liability, but I don't think that will work long.

Edit: and as per the ruling, it sounds like the new knowledge that the car can't on HW3 but can on others, would trigger new knowledge opening up past the statute of limitations

Everythingispenguins ,

I bet if this goes to trial his lawyers are just going to argue that no reasonable person would believe these claims. That is just hyperbole there for it is not fraud.

Corkyskog ,

Maybe, but you could easily argue that no reasonable CEO would make such claims. And any company that size should have levels of review and therefore liability if there were people who clearly knew it was false.

Everythingispenguins ,

Totally, though the hyperbole defense is real and much easier to argue. They will just say that Musk is part hype man for Tesla. Rhetorical hyperbole has been confirmed by the supreme Court to be a first amendment protected activity. You may feel this is dumb, but was also how John Oliver was able to repeatedly tell Bob Murray to eat shit.

slurpinderpin ,

Hahahahah fuck Elon’s fraudster ass

DarthYoshiBoy ,
@DarthYoshiBoy@kbin.social avatar

Not for all the money in the world could you convince me to touch him, let alone what you propose.

bilb ,
@bilb@lem.monster avatar

Eh, I'd give him a poke.

kibiz0r ,

But LoSavio had opted out of the arbitration agreement and was given the option of filing an amended complaint.

This is why it’s important to opt out of arbitration!

Also notice the potential for fuckery in the statute of limitations here:

the relevant statutes of limitations range from two to four years, and LoSavio sued over five years after buying the car. Under the delayed discovery rule, the limitations period begins when "the plaintiff has, or should have, inquiry notice of the cause of action."

But when Tesla declined to update his car's cameras in April 2022, "LoSavio allegedly discovered that he had been misled by Tesla's claim that his car had all the hardware needed for full automation."

Without that specific moment to point to, to reset the clock through delayed discovery, Tesla could just say “Yeah, we lied, but you bought the lie for 5 years, so now we’re in the clear!”

Buffalox ,

Yes and in 2019 Musk's claims went even further, when he claimed it was stupid to buy anything but Tesla, because next year (2020) You would be able to make money on it as a RoboTaxi. As I recall it was $200,000.- you should be able to make on a Tesla per year!!! Why he sold them then is a bit strange?
He also claimed that instead of losing value, a Tesla would increase as much as five times in value in a year, because FSD was worth that much.

How this man hasn't been jailed for fraud years ago is beyond me, I could understand if USA was a corrupt country for the rich...
oh... Never mind.

MxM111 ,

I think he truly believed all that. He did not lie, he was wrong about the future. Or at least that would be his legal defense.

NotMyOldRedditName ,

He's claimed before that he honestly believes it each year by watching the progress the past X months, but suddenly all progress stops as their method hits a plateau. So they keep changing methods.

It's probably an honest mistake the first time or two, but he's done this every year since and has no credibility anymore.

After being wrong by a year or two, he should have explained what was going in, and shut up about it, with a simple I don't know when it'll be ready but you should see forward progress each year.

MxM111 ,

He is a smart guy and an idiot at the same time. I don’t know how it fits in the same person. He is not neurotypical.

n3m37h ,

He's not smart he is just in the elite club where he fails upwards, his name will be cemented beside DJ Khaled for most successful failure

unreasonabro ,

get born rich

fail like a bitch

That's Elon

unreasonabro ,

aww, he's a smidiot. That's idiartic, Elon! ;)

m13 ,

There are plenty of bosses like him out there. Completely high on their own shit. He reads about technology in a sci-fi book, and thinks he can Steve Jobs into bullying workers into making it a reality. Completely deludes himself into thinking it’s real and sells it to investors with full confidence. He has no idea of the actual technical challenges and fully convinces himself his genius brain could figure it out if he wasn’t so “busy” all the time. Everything is perpetually just 6 months away.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

The worst part is that he doesn't even understand the sci-fi he consumes. He said this not too long ago:

Grok is an AI modeled after The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, so intended to answer almost anything and, far harder, even suggest what questions to ask!

Every AI in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was broken, an asshole or both. Douglas Adams clearly thought the idea of a "human-like" AI was abhorrent. Especially one developed by a giant corporation.

Also, he thinks the name of the main character in Blade Runner is "Bladerunner."

https://futurism.com/the-byte/elon-musk-main-character-blade-runner

pr06lefs ,

And the word grok comes from stranger in a strange land, not hitchhikers guide.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

True, and since part of the meaning of grok in the book was 'to love,' naming your "anti-woke" AI after that suggests he also didn't understand that book.

ReveredOxygen ,
@ReveredOxygen@sh.itjust.works avatar

I don't think he meant an AI from the book, I think he meant the actual Hitchhiker's Guide. The one that says don't panic on the cover

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Which, again, was incredibly corrupt and run by a soulless corporation that didn't actually care about the truth.

Buffalox ,

Every AI in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy was broken,

Wow, I'm a huge fan of Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, and I never really thought of that, but you are 100% right.
Wonderful comment thanks. 👍 😀

Buffalox ,

Except he claimed Tesla had the technology working NOW in 2019. Which is a factually false statement not about beliefs.

MxM111 ,

And that would is probably one of the indicators of why lawsuit is allowed to proceed and might be won in the end.

TheGrandNagus ,

Yeah. He explicitly stated that the only thing stopping them flipping the switch were those damn pesky road laws

Serinus ,

Which I'm sure was true. It would certainly be a lot faster to debug FSD after a number of deaths for each bug.

PrettyFlyForAFatGuy ,

depends how you define "working" i suppose.

can a tesla drive its full range automomously? probably...

should it? probably not

Buffalox ,

Musk defined it himself, as the car being able to drive autonomously from a parking lot across the country to pick you up in another parking lot.

PrettyFlyForAFatGuy ,

and they could do that in theory, just not very safely

Buffalox ,

In theory is not the same as actually being able to do it, which was what he clearly claimed saying: And we can do that NOW.

PrettyFlyForAFatGuy ,

Its only not possible on consumer models because of restrictions put in place by tesla.

As evidenced by Elon mode

A tesla can drive its self, but it doesnt because of regulatory/safety/liability reasons

Buffalox ,

No it was not, we have testimony from employees that FSD wasn't even close to what Musk claimed. And it can't even do it today.
Just because you can flip a switch that says FSD doesn't mean it works.

PrettyFlyForAFatGuy ,

Again, we're arguing about the definition of "working" which was my original point.

Can it self drive? yes

Should it? no

smonkeysnilas ,

That argument is stupid. My robot lawn mower "can drive itself" but it can't follow traffic rules and would crash after a while if set to drive on its own in a road. Just as a Tesla. What Musk was implying was "it can drive itself without violating traffic rules and causing crashes" and clearly it can't.

PrettyFlyForAFatGuy , (edited )

I think FSD is further along than you think it is.

certainly a lot further than the kind of "self driving" present in your standard robotic lawn mower

smonkeysnilas , (edited )

Well yes, but the end result after driving unattended in traffic for a while is the same still, that's the point. You could argue that a FSD Tesla makes it a bit further, I guess that's true but still it's far from what Elon was selling to the people.

Thorny_Insight ,

I think FSD is further along than you think it is.

This is the issue with all these debates currently. The people arguing against FSD are totally unaware of how far it has come since just a few months ago. They have already made up their minds based on how much it sucked a year ago and they're under the illusion that it's at best just marginally better today. I love watching the YouTube channel CYBRLFT and seeing people's minds getting blown in real time when they realize that what they've heard on the news and on social media is so far from the reality.

Is it perfect? No. Is it unbelieveably good? Yes.

Buffalox ,

Can it self drive? yes No

That's like saying a car with cruise control can self drive. Although FSD is more sophisticated, it still can't.
The Tesla cannot self drive by any reasonable meaning of the term.
Tesla also calls it assisted self driving now. And that's obviously not because it works now, which even now 8 years later it doesn't.

Meansalladknifehands ,

Are you debating just to debate, or do you just fail to see the obvious issue?

Thorny_Insight ,

It can do that now. Probably not with zero driver interventions especially when talking about a trip across the country but Tesla is the only vehicle manufacturer today that offers this capability. There's a dude on YouTube doing ridesharing with Tesla using FSD and with the latest software version it completes 90% of the trips from the pickup to the destination without intervention from the driver.

Buffalox , (edited )

It can do that now.

OK? Doubts.

Probably not with zero driver interventions

Oh so it can't?!

Musk also said more safely than a human being. I've seen videos with FSD creating numerous dangerous situations on a single trip, that required quick intervention to avoid collisions. Driving in narrow roads it would suddenly turn into opposite traffic (potentially lethal), not minding right of way in crosses (also potentially lethal), and even turning straight towards parked cars, when the lane it was in was unobstructed!!

Another video I saw, it crossed at a very clear red light!! That's a very potentially lethal situation.

There is no way it can be reasonably argued that Tesla has working full self driving.

it completes 90% of the trips

You know 90% isn't even close to being half finished. The next 9% are probably more difficult, and the last percent the most difficult. There's a reason the hard parts are finished last.

Thorny_Insight , (edited )

I don't see anyone claiming they have "working full self driving". That's a strawman argument. Their system is really good and years ahead of competition but there's still a shit ton to improve. That's why it's classified as level 2 and not level 3. It's a vehicle capable of driving itself under supervision but it's not a self driving vehicle.

I’ve seen videos with FSD creating numerous dangerous situations on a single trip

In the past few months? Because the current software version is completely different than what it used to be. They've moved entirely from human code to neural nets and it made a giant improvement in its performance.

Buffalox , (edited )

I don’t see anyone claiming they have “working full self driving”

The whole thread is about Musk claiming in 2019 that Tesla has FSD working NOW, that could drive the car from a parking lot on the other side of the country (USA) and pick you up in a parking lot where you are. AND that it could drive more safely than a human being.
I am not interested in the slightest whether it's 50% or 90% there now, the fact is the claim was made first in 2016, that Tesla would have it ready NEXT YEAR, and in 2019 he claimed it was ready NOW! And it's STILL not ready!!

So what is it about Musks claims being false you don't understand?

I don’t see anyone claiming they have “working full self driving”.

That's decidedly false, because you yourself wrote:

It can do that now.

Thorny_Insight ,

The whole thread is about Musk claiming in 2019 that Tesla has FSD working NOW

From the article:

(1) representations that Tesla vehicles have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability and, (2) representations that a Tesla car would be able to drive itself cross-country in the coming year.

So not only are you clearly emotionally invested here but you're also being dishonest about the claims that have been made. I don't think there's any reason to go further with this.

Buffalox , (edited )

Oh boy you are tiresome, I wrote the thread, not the post.
But still the context of "the coming year" Musk claimed Tesla had that NOW in 2019, and it would
be made available to consumers in the coming year being 2020. It's from the exact same presentation.

Nothing you quote contradicts anything I wrote. It's just different parts of the same thing, which of course requires background knowledge you evidently don't have.

efstajas ,

I don't see anyone claiming they have "working full self driving"

... They're literally calling it "Full self driving".

Thorny_Insight ,

..and I don't see anyone claiming it to be "working" as in it being safe enough to not need supervision.

efstajas ,

Wait, so in your mind products need to have "working" in their name in order to be held to the standard of ... working? I don't understand what you're trying to argue at all. They're calling and selling this product as "full self driving". It's not full self driving. It doesn't need to be called "working full self driving" in order for it to be misleading.

Thorny_Insight ,

No, the other user is claiming that they don't have a "working" full self driving but is being vague about what they mean by "working".

Full Self Driving is just the name of the software. There's also autopilot but that's different. The end goal of it is to eventually be capable of level 5 self driving so that's why it's named like that even though it has been a work in progress all of it's existence. Wouldn't make much sense to call it "partial self driving under supervision" because Full Self Driving is a better marketing term. Misleading? Well yeah perhaps but that's what marketing teams do. Nothing new there. Not a single Tesla owner is under the illusion that you can just enable the system and take a nap. Doesn't mean people don't do that but they know that they shouldn't. The system tells you that every single time you enable it.

Personally I don't see a huge issue with that name. It's level 2 meaning that it needs driver supervision and it's by no means flawless but it does what the name implies: drives itself. It's not just an advanced cruise control like for example the Mercedes Drive Pilot but it is actually capable of independently driving itself and especially with the V12 it's actually getting quite good at it.

efstajas ,

No, the other user is claiming that they don't have a "working" full self driving but is being vague about what they mean by "working".

I don't think the other commenter is being is vague at all. "Full self driving" quite literally means Level 5, maybe level 4. That's just what those words mean. There's no argument here.

Full Self Driving is just the name of the software

Yes, which is the problem.

The end goal of it is to eventually be capable of level 5 self driving so that's why it's named like that even though it has been a work in progress all of it's existence.

Which is exactly why calling it "full self driving" now doesn't make any sense. It's false advertising at best, and a super dangerous overpromise at worst.

Wouldn't make much sense to call it "partial self driving under supervision" because Full Self Driving is a better marketing term.

Of course it's a "better marketing term", because "full self driving" is the pinnacle of self driving tech, what Tesla and everyone else in the race is trying to achieve. The problem is that what they have is not full self driving, and in fact whether it can ever be achieved with current Tesla hardware is far from proven. I'm not confused as to why they call it that, I'm arguing the point that they shouldn't call it that.

Misleading? Well yeah perhaps but that's what marketing teams do. Nothing new there.

Not at all. This is not typically what marketing teams do at all. It's pretty damn unusual for a major corporation to sell a product under the technical term for what it may be at some point. Or do you have any other examples of this?

Not a single Tesla owner is under the illusion that you can just enable the system and take a nap.

Maybe not, but do you really think no-one bought a Tesla based on Elon's promise that it'd be fully self driving by 2019? Or that you could monetize it by having it run as a robotaxi at night by 2020?

Doesn't mean people don't do that but they know that they shouldn't.

Tesla and Musk not constantly overpromising and misrepresenting their product with false confidence might help with preventing people from placing undue trust in the system.

Personally I don't see a huge issue with that name. It's level 2

As you say, it's level 2. "Full self driving" is level 5. You still don't see the problem with the name?

it does what the name implies: drives itself

It quite literally does not drive itself given that a driver needs to be around and alert to take over at any moment.

Thorny_Insight ,

I'll grant you that the name is misleading. They should change it. It's also plausible that there's some number of customers for which the false marketing claims may have been the deciding factor in their purchase decision.

Is there something else you feel I'm confused about?

racemaniac ,

"Their system is really good and years ahead of competition but there’s still a shit ton to improve"

Is it years ahead of the competition? I thought the consensus was that Tesla is far behind, hence why Mercedes is the first brand to actually have some basic level 3 automomus driving actually to customers, and companies other than tesla are actually doing tests with robo taxis. Tesla is good at claiming it can do the above, other companies are the ones actually doing it.

And indeed, there's a shit ton to improve, which directly contradicts statements Elon Musk made, and keeps making. As others already pointed out, calling it Full Self Driving while letting it do that is basically suicide is just the beginning. Elon Musk regularly repeating that it's there, it works etc... only to leave customers waiting for nearly 8 years now with a system that is not what Elon described, etc...

Self driving is really hard, Tesla made some good progress on it, but Elon continuously lying about it should indeed get legal consequences. I'm hope this lawsuit teaches him to actually talk about things he actually knows are true, and not just what he wishes was true.

Thorny_Insight , (edited )

I thought the consensus was that Tesla is far behind, hence why Mercedes is the first brand to actually have some basic level 3 automomus driving actually to customers

Yeah that seems to be the consensus but I have no idea what it's based on. When the Mercedes system is put against FSD it looks like this. The level 3 driving is available only on a handful of highways between LA, SF and LV and even then only in ideal weather and traffic conditions.

If the competition really is ahead then where are all the videos of their vehicles doing what FSD does? There are countless accounts on YouTube demonstrating the capabilities of FSD driving both on highways and in cities but nothing about these other brands.

https://i.imgur.com/ow3SUkR.jpeg

racemaniac ,

Why don't you ask the experts that rather than a random lemming like me? And why don't you ask Elon why he keeps claiming it's capable of more than it actually is?

I honestly don't care enough about it to do research, but you seem to. And i'd just love for guys like Elon to stop lying about what they have.

Buffalox ,

I have no idea what it’s based on.

It's obviously based on other makers being ahead.

Mercedes, Waymo, GM, MobilEye, Nvidia are all ahead, making Tesla #6 at best.

When the Mercedes system is put against FSD it looks like this.

Are you misleading on purpose? Or are you really that dense?

https://www.mbusa.com/en/owners/manuals/drive-pilot

Mercedes Calls their version of fully autonomous driving: Drive Pilot but you show a comparison to a way more basic Driving Assistant, which is nowhere close!

This comparison shows that Tesla FSD in reality is merely a drive assist.

Thorny_Insight , (edited )

Are you misleading on purpose?

The level 3 driving is available only on a handful of highways between LA, SF and LV and even then only in ideal weather and traffic conditions.

Stated clearly in the very next sentence.

This comparison shows that Tesla FSD in reality is merely a drive assist.

Always has been. That video compares drive assist to another. Apples to apples comparison. What exactly is the issue here?

Buffalox ,

Mercedes: Requirements to be used Legally.
Tesla: Not Legal unverified results.

werefreeatlast ,

Forget Tesla dude! Trust me I'm from the year 2024. In just a few months your world will change drastically and everyone will start getting 😷 sick and wearing a mask. We called it COVID 19 and it was bad. Real bad. The only way to fight this pandemic was to isolate as much as possible until a vaccine was made available. The markets never crashed like Trump suggested.... almost as if he knew something was happening....you must invest all your money on moderna and Pfizer vaccine related stocks. Anyway, that's all I remember. Paxlovid was okay but not a vaccine. Wow, Lemmy let's you time travel! We need to invest into this technology!

RememberTheApollo_ , (edited )

Funny how rich people can get away with that. I could say I fully believe I’m going to win $50 million in the lottery next week, buy a bunch of shit I can’t pay for, and probably wind up jailed pretty shortly thereafter and nobody would bat an eye. Rich guy selling vaporware? No problem, he just believed his own hype train. Sorry, investors.

phoenixz ,

I really believed that...

Uh-huh... There is a long, LONG list of bullshit that he believed, and continues to believe. There comes a point where we either have to accept that he has the mental level of a 5 year old believing in Santa Claus, or that he is a narcissistic compulsive liar.

OpenStars ,
@OpenStars@discuss.online avatar

Now watch as Musk faces "consequences(TM)".

Why, he might have to pay a fine of a full hour's worth of profits that resulted from his actions!?

TurdMongler ,

He's a military contractor.

Buffalox ,

Yes with Starlink which the military threatened they might nationalize if Musk sabotaged Ukraine access again.
I honestly don't think Musk's value as a military contractor is very high, and probably (hopefully) not enough to protect him from criminal liability.

Thorny_Insight ,

if Musk sabotaged Ukraine access again

Misinformation

Buffalox ,

Yes because snopes is a better source than CNN, WaPo, BBC, AP News, The Hill, Reuters and on and on.

Also he has admitted it himself:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66752264

Elon Musk says he withheld Starlink over Crimea to avoid escalation

So why don't you just butt off with your bullshit already? You are hereby reported.

Thorny_Insight ,

Jesus christ dude. There's quote from the author himself, Walter Isaacson who is the person from whose book the whole claim originated from.

To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it, because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a major war.

You believe him when the narrative suits you but you don't when it doesn't. Talk about cognitive dissonance lol

Enabling Starlink in Crimea would have been against the sanctions to Russia by the US. Literally illegal.

Anyway I'm done with you. Don't bother replying.

downpunxx ,
@downpunxx@fedia.io avatar

nom nom nom

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

A federal judge ruled yesterday that Tesla must face a lawsuit alleging that it committed fraud by misrepresenting the self-driving capabilities of its vehicles.

LoSavio points to a Tesla statement in October 2016 that all its cars going forward would have the "hardware needed for full self-driving capability," and a November 2016 email newsletter stating that "all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory now have full self-driving hardware."

According to the SAC [Second Amended Complaint], Tesla's cars have thus stalled at SAE Level 2 ("Partial Driving Automation"), which requires "the human driver's constant supervision, responsibility, and control."

Even if Tesla meant to convey that its hardware could reach Level 2 only, the SAC still sufficiently alleges that those representations reasonably misled LoSavio.

The complaint also "sufficiently alleges that Musk falsely represented the vehicle's future ability to self-drive cross-country and that LoSavio relied upon these representations pre-purchase," Lin concluded.

Musk claimed at an October 2016 news conference that a Tesla car would be able to drive from Los Angeles to New York City "by the end of next year without the need for a single touch."

The original article contains 509 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •