| ▲ | charcircuit 3 hours ago |
| From what I've seen on YouTube the cars do drive themselves. This seems more like the type of thing with AI where people change the goal posts of what AI means. Just because a car did not slow down in a school zone, that doesn't mean that the car wasn't driving itself. |
|
| ▲ | AlotOfReading 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| This is a common misconception. People tend to think driving is controlling the steering and pedals, so if FSD does those things it must be driving. It's not. Driving is whatever has ultimate responsibility for the vehicle and its occupants. If a cop pulls you over while FSD is enabled, it's not Tesla who's paying the ticket. If FSD has an issue, you're the driver who has to respond. Think of FSD as a very nice cruise control. You're still driving, even if you aren't touching the wheel. |
| |
| ▲ | tencentshill 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The bottom line is, no one else is even remotely close to that experience for the driver, liable or not. Probably with good reason, as every other car company actually listen to their lawyers. | |
| ▲ | pdpi 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sort of how programming isn't the same as writing code — it also involves a bunch of other thing like all the design and planning work. | |
| ▲ | zadikian 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's a common misconception because the thing is called "full self driving." | |
| ▲ | charcircuit an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | So if the law says that a human in the car has to be responsible then it is impossible for a self driving car to exist. I do not think tying the definition to legal liability is right. I don't see why self driving couldn't just be steering and pedals. It would be pretty limiting but it would be able to drive itself in a circle at least. | | |
| ▲ | Retric an hour ago | parent [-] | | No. The law allows passengers in self driving Taxi not to be responsible. Including Taxi operated by Tesla. Here Tesla makes it clear to people who turn on “Full self driving” the driver must maintain supervision and thus responsibility. As such it’s Tesla’s choice that they aren’t selling self driving cars. It wouldn’t be such a big deal if some random engineer said they’d eventually do X, but when it’s the CEO repeatedly saying the same across many public appearances that’s as binding as a Super Bowl advertisement. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | rootusrootus 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's fairly simple. Tesla says I have to supervise, and they are not liable for anything the car does wrong. It is not full self-driving any more than a 25 40 year old car with cruise control is. |
|
| ▲ | loloquwowndueo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| By that logic it’s ok if the car slams itself against a concrete wall - just because it failed to stop in time doesn’t mean it wasn’t driving itself. Self driving cars are supposed to obey the same rules as human drivers. |
| |
| ▲ | roenxi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well ... yes. By that logic it is the case. It applies to humans too - if a human slams their car into a concrete wall then the human was still driving the car. They did a bad job of it, but they were in fact driving. A car being driven autonomously doesn't imply much about the quality of that driving. They're still going to make bad decisions and have accidents, just like humans do (a friend of mine died slamming their car into a tree). There is probably some minimum where we'd say that it isn't really driving because it can't do anything right, but modern self driving systems are past that. | |
| ▲ | RajT88 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Tesla FSD is vulnerable to RoadRunner and Wile E. Coyote style tricks. | | |
| ▲ | iknowstuff 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | it's not. that vid was using autopilot, not fsd, and subsequent videos using actual new FSD were fine | |
| ▲ | qingcharles 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Fortunately the ACME products are flawed and subject to their own litigation, see e.g. Coyote vs. ACME (2026). | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | charcircuit an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Both statements can be true. Human vs self driving cars is a different classification between good and bad driving. Humans can slam into a wall too. |
|
|
| ▲ | throw7 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| When full liability is put on the manufacturer, then we can talk about "cars driving themselves". |
| |
|
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | zadikian 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| AI never had goalposts, it means programming meant to look like human behavior. Like AI opponents in old video games. |
|
| ▲ | dawnerd 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Those YouTubers are all there to make Tesla look good. It’s a grift. The ones that are honest and show the bad side get kicked out of the Tesla club fast and dogpiled on. Also a school zone is one of the most basic things the car should be able to handle. If it can’t do that, it’s not ready for public use. |
| |
| ▲ | roenxi 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Also a school zone is one of the most basic things the car should be able to handle. If it can’t do that, it’s not ready for public use. Humans don't always follow the law driving through school zones. And when humans speed through a school zone, the human is definitely driving the car. Are we ready to let humans drive on public roads? The argument has to go into the magnitude of the problem to get anywhere meaningful. |
|
|
| ▲ | UltraSane 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Tesla FSD won't be level 5 until Tesla has liability for any crashes it causes the way Waymo does. |
|
| ▲ | kalleboo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Elon Musks claims included (exact quotes, these posts are still on X): Jan 10, 2016: In ~2 years, summon should work anywhere connected by land & not blocked by borders, eg you're in LA and the car is in NY Jul 16, 2019: If we make all cars with FSD package self-driving, as planned, any such Tesla should be worth $100k to $200k, as utility increases from ~12 hours/week to ~60 hours/week These aren't moving goalposts by antis, this are the expectations set by Elon Musk himself when advertising his products. |
| |
|
| ▲ | frakkingcylons 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| See, that's really the best argument for this. It can drive itself the same way I can fly an Airbus A321. You can't sue me because I didn't land the plane "intact". |
