This kind of "self driving" shouldn't even be legal. Giving a driver a explicit reason not to pay attention but still instructing them and expecting them to pay attention is a recipe for disaster. I don't know whose bright idea that was, maybe an accident lawyer, but it has been quite deadly.
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
191 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
57472 readers
3585 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
My favourite clip is the one where the Tesla, seconds after repeatedly trying to kill a cyclist, decides that it’s a train and tries to go on the train tracks instead.
And people pay for that bullshit.
And they made it a subscription too so you have to keep paying
If you take your eyes off the road for more than 3-5 seconds (depending on speed), it beeps at you. Doing this 3 times in about 5 mins will lock you out of the system and give you a strike. 5 strikes in about 6-9 months, you lose access to the “self driving”.
It’s way more aggressive than it used to be at least.
Even if that is true and the system is perfect at doing so....
This does nothing to refute his point. It's still giving a reason not to pay attention while requiring that you pay attention.
Even if it is accurately able to assess whether you are, and act accordingly, it is still giving you a reason not to pay attention. All your statement does is reinforce that it's requiring you to pay attention, which was part of his point.
Definitely not refuting the point. Just noting that it’s very aggressive in making sure you’re watching the road. I can’t even look at the screen where the map is for too long or it gives me a warning beep.
How does the car know where your looking? Don’t you have your hands on the steering wheel? I have a lane keep assist feature in my car and it has you take the wheel every 15 secs if it hasn’t felt your hand weight on the wheel.
There’s a camera in the cabin that faces the driver. It’s above the rear view mirror. It does also feel the weight of your hand on the wheel and gets mad if that’s missing.
"Necessitating that my company advertises truthfully is against my right to free speech" is a bold strategy.
Stupid? Yes, incredibly so. But bold nonetheless.
"Now you're not even allowed to lie in order to defraud customers? I thought this was America! This is Cancel Culture gone too far!"
Sigh.
When a free market absolutist meets a free speech absolutist.
Of all the concerning shit facing Autopilot and FSD, the adjectives used in the marketing materials are the least of my concerns.
I’m more concerned that half baked shit is allowed to be on the road. I have literally had to run in front of a summoned Model 3 so the sensors would stop the vehicle and not hit a child.
Elon / Teslea needs money more than you need to live.
One of the state laws that Tesla complains about is Cal. Veh. Code § 24011.5, which says that companies "shall not name any partial driving automation feature, or describe any partial driving automation feature in marketing materials, using language that implies or would otherwise lead a reasonable person to believe, that the feature allows the vehicle to function as an autonomous vehicle."
So Tesla accepts they mislead the customers but that's their constitutional right?
I would love for somebody to honestly defend/show a different interpretation. It sounds so bad I can't on my own understand how people still defend this.
This is a loser of an argument, his lawyers know it and have told him such. Commercial speech is famously not really protected by 1A and this type of restriction is not only permissible, it’s quite common.
Corporations don't have rights.
Shouldn't*
But unfortunately corporations are considered people
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Tesla is trying to use a free speech argument to defeat a complaint that it falsely advertised "Autopilot" as an autonomous vehicle system.
In response to the California Department of Motor Vehicles allegation about Autopilot, Tesla claims the state laws cited by the DMV violate the US Constitution's First Amendment.
Tesla's response, which was filed last week and published yesterday in a story by The Register, says that several California statutes and regulations cited by the DMV "are unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2, of the California Constitution, as they impermissibly restrict Tesla's truthful and nonmisleading speech about its vehicles and their features."
Despite Tesla's free speech claim, the US and state governments can enforce laws banning deceptive practices that harm consumers.
"Beyond the category of common-law fraud, the Supreme Court has also said that false or misleading commercial speech may be prohibited," a Congressional Research Service report last year stated.
The California DMV's 2022 complaint, alleging deceptive practices that violate state law, said that Tesla "made or disseminated statements that are untrue or misleading, and not based on facts, in advertising vehicles as equipped, or potentially equipped, with advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) features...
The original article contains 487 words, the summary contains 204 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
False-advertising laws are already hardly enforced. You ever see what a burger looks like on TV and what they look like in person?
Don't even get me started on all those video game companies advertising that their game is "complete" only to release a half-finished piece of shit.