They were offered a lie. Tesla still hasn't delivered what those customers paid for.
> Let’s look at what else has changed on Tesla’s website on FSD before we dive into the wording changes.
Another recent change on Tesla's website is to remove old blog posts, including a 2016 blog post in which Tesla claimed "as of today, all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory – including Model 3 – will have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver":
https://electrek.co/2024/08/24/tesla-deletes-its-blog-post-s...
https://web.archive.org/web/20240709163806/https://www.tesla...
Tesla might now also outsource its AI work to xAI:
https://www.wsj.com/tech/tesla-xai-partnership-elon-musk-30e...
If indeed Tesla is "worth basically zero" without full self-driving:
https://electrek.co/2022/06/15/elon-musk-solving-self-drivin...
Then moving that work to xAI seems like a good way to turn Tesla into a private company without actually purchasing it.
Perhaps unintended but this is a bit misleading. Tesla changed their blog system and didn’t migrate older posts. My initial reading of your comment was that they selectively removed some older posts which they wanted to hide.
Things may change in the future as we make advances in computing and AI, but right now it is not possible.
Come on now. Elon was the one being pigheadedly stubborn about camera vision over LIDAR. There's really no reason to think this was a case where the engineers were insisting on a viable approach that unfortunately proved infeasible over time.
They weren't going to be able to do it with the tech they put in the cars and damn near everyone knew it. We shouldn't think their engineers were uniquely blind to what everyone was saying when it's fairly clear that there was a top down push here.
No matter how good the AI is, the car is not going to be able to drive if the image is a big white blob of blown out sun or bird poop, and there is no redundant sensor.
Remember when the law made sense? Me neither.
0. Tempering customer expectations from overpromising.
1. Investors' concerns about liabilities of advertising autonomous operation, potentially implicitly implying unsupervised.
2. Culpability of drivers when "supervised" (within visual sight) operation fails in a manner that's not immediately physically controllable. What if summon runs into a person or runs over a pet?
3. Potentially replacing "original FSD" with a lower tier substitute at the same price point, or as a subscription only.
While I might jump to 3, 0 and 1 seem the most likely. 2 is still remains a big question mark.
Now that they see the light at the end of the tunnel, they're planning to transition to a subscription model, and the cars that do have it will slowly fall out of circulation as they age, with many of them not having the right hardware for the real thing anyways.
This is similar to what they did with supercharging.
If that's the case, Tesla will probably figure this out as well.
That was like 10 years ago, and we still don't have anything even remotely close to self driving besides the few $$$ experimental cars driving the long straight roads of ever sunny california
This is the kind of thing that makes me believe that class solidarity is real.
He says crazy things that he believes, it manipulates investors and as his wealth increases he just believes the crazy things more.
We should hold people accountable for their behavior regardless.
Cheeky Reddit discussions arguing how reaching Mars is easier than the moon care more about saving some delta V than saving the lives of the astronauts that would embark on a suicide mission just to appease SpaceX investors.
SpsceX has no plans to build a space station around Mars, meanwhile NASA wants to build a Mars gateway by rehearsing on the moon. SpaceX has not built any hardware or space suits that are necessary for long term survival on the martian surface. Those astronauts would arrive without any means for survival, stuck in their starship just as if they were stuck in a space station. Then there is the fact that at the current rate of progress, the mars schedule is faster than the moon/artemis schedule, implying that they don't care about the moon and are diverting resources away from it even though they have received money and a super tight deadline for it.
At what point would it be considered fraud?
IDGAF whatever Musk really believes, the fact of the matter is that if he repeats the "any moment" line on an investor call, he has to be held to it. You can't trot out your own personal beliefs with investor's money, even if you sincerely believe it. He has staff and advisors that can tell him point blank if the tech is really ready, or not ready at all. If those advisors or staff tell him that it's close to being ready, that's straight up fraud unless they can put-up-or-shut-up. If they tell him it's not ready but he repeats the lie, it's also fraud.
How many more excuses will we give this guy? This is absurd.
Disclosure: I founded a startup, and have a few investors. I have to be fully transparent with them, because that's not only the ethical thing to do when you take someone's money, you also have to do so because the law compels you to do so. If I tell them that a product is close to being ready, I have to be ready to prove it. I can't make such claims otherwise. Why are we not holding the wealthiest guy on earth to the same laws EVERYONE ELSE is held to?
I still like his quote “SpaceX makes the impossible merely late”
Fully self driving cars and people on Mars will happen. And I feel pretty certain Tesla and SpaceX will be at least a bit responsible for pushing it to happen faster than if they didn’t exist.
Of course they are not perfect, but on the whole I think we’re better off because they exist.
10 years of lies is not optimism. It's just lies:
they have never had a thing called "FSD" that existed, but they keep taking money from customers and also people keep dying, for years and years.
