| ▲ | freerobby 6 days ago |
| This is clickbait from a publication that's had it out for Tesla for nearly a decade. Tesla is pivoting messaging toward what the car can do today. You can believe that FSD will deliver L4 autonomy to owners or not -- I'm not wading into that -- but this updated web site copy does not change the promises they've made prior owners, and Tesla has not walked back those promises. The most obvious tell of this is the unsupervised program in operation right now in Austin. |
|
| ▲ | qwerpy 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Marketing choice of words aside, it's already really good now to the point that it probably does 95% of my driving. Once in a while it chooses the wrong lane and very rarely I will have to intervene, but it's always getting better. If they just called it "Advanced Driver Assist" or something, and politics weren't such an emotional trigger, it would be hailed as a huge achievement. |
| |
| ▲ | freerobby 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, Tesla did themselves no favors with how they initially marketed FSD, and all the missed timelines amplified the brand cost of that. I'm glad to see them focus on what it can do today. Better to underpromise and overdeliver etc. As an aside, it's wild how different the perspective is between the masses and the people who experience the bleeding edge here. "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed," indeed. | | |
| ▲ | utyop22 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Surely you're joking? You really believe those timelines were set in good faith? Lol it has been strategic manipulation right the way through. Right out of an Industrial Organisation textbook. | | |
| ▲ | freerobby 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah I think their early success with Tesla Vision was faster than expected, it went to their heads, and they underestimated the iteration and fine tuning needed to solve the edge cases. It's difficult to predict how many reps it will take to solve an intricate problem. That's not to excuse their public timeline -- their guidance was naive and IMO irresponsible -- but I don't think it was in bad faith. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | an0malous 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Great spin job. They didn’t lie, they’re just “pivoting their messaging” |
|
| ▲ | panarky 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Can you find any statement in the article that is false? |
| |
| ▲ | freerobby 6 days ago | parent [-] | | The first one. > Tesla has changed the meaning of “Full Self-Driving”, also known as “FSD”, to give up on its original promise of delivering unsupervised autonomy. They have not given up on unsupervised autonomy. They are operating unsupervised autonomy in Austin TX as I type this! | | |
| ▲ | addaon 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > They have not given up on unsupervised autonomy. They are operating unsupervised autonomy in Austin TX as I type this! Setting aside calling a driver in the driver's seat "unsupervised"... that's exactly the point. People paid for this, and they are revoking their promise of delivering it, instead re-focusing on (attempting) operating it themselves. I'd have no objection to this if they offered buy-backs on the vehicles in the field, but that seems unlikely. | | |
| ▲ | electriclove 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I would like to understand what population feels they were fleeced. The FSD available on their cars with HW3 (some as old as 2017?) is quite impressive when you consider what the capabilities were back then. Sure, it won’t be as good as a 2025 Juniper Model Y. But who are the people that bought FSD in the early days and are unhappy and how big of a population is that? Is this the main thing people are upset about? Or are people upset about the current state of autonomous vehicles like Waymo (which has been working for Years!) and the limited launch of Robotaxi? | |
| ▲ | freerobby 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I haven't closely followed which rides have drivers where, and what is driven by Tesla vs what is regulatory -- but I thought some "drivers" were still in the passenger seat in Austin? At any rate, I don't think they are revoking their prior promises. I expect them to deliver L4 autonomy to owners as previously promised. With that said, I'm glad they are ceasing that promise to new customers and focusing on what the car does today, given how wrong their timelines have been. I agree it's shitty if they don't deliver that, and that they should offer buybacks if they find themselves in that position. | | |
| ▲ | addaon 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > but I thought some "drivers" were still in the passenger seat in Austin? Nope, they gave up on that and moved them to the driver's seat. | | | |
| ▲ | 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | panarky 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The first one That's not a fact, it's a conclusion drawn from all the other facts in the article. Did you find the facts that support this conclusion to be false? | |
| ▲ | narrator 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, they never said this. This article smells like anti-Elon FUD. "Elon is a dummy, everything he tries will fail, replace him with someone who isn't so controversial and supports the proper politics for a powerful global figure" and repeat in 100 minor internet blogs until the money to write these articles runs out. |
|
|
