> Elon Musk said it might be because they “still don’t believe it’s real.”
That's because Musk has been lying about the state of full self-driving for years. False claims, staged videos, and continuous lies of "next year, for sure!" aren't a good way to go:
In 2016 Tesla claimed "that, 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". That was a lie:
Why would they ever? Leaving aside the vapourware angle, Musk is an immature person who would not hesitate to turn off access to FSD if a manufacturer pissed him off (like if they reduced advertising on X, for example).
Yeah, AFAICT Tesla hasn't given any details about what the license terms would actually be, this is just Musk going: "Make me an offer and I'll think about working something out maybe."
This ambiguity is pretty important given Musk's questionable history of self-promotion and construction/adherence of contracts.
>Musk is an immature person who would not hesitate to turn off access to FSD if a manufacturer pissed him off (like if they reduced advertising on X, for example).
Presumably there will be a clause in the agreement that prevents this. Musk as erratic as he is, isn't going to ignore court orders. After all, he did eventually cough up the money to buy twitter.
>A federal appeals court on Monday rejected Elon Musk's bid to modify or end his 2018 securities fraud settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that required a Tesla Inc (TSLA.O), opens new tab lawyer to approve some of his tweets in advance.
Appealing a court decision is nowhere close to "ignoring court orders"
Elon tried like crazy to get out of the Twitter contract he signed and only caved once it was clear he would almost certainly lose in court. He has a long history of not honoring commitments to suppliers, employee severence, and more. Not to mention all of legal but gross and spiteful behavior he has shown towards companies and individuals that piss him off.
So there's a good chance they'd be sabotaged out of spite by a manchild, then forced to wait potentially years for a final court judgement in their favor that isn't stayed?
If FSD is the future (personally I think we're fifty years away but whatever) why the hell would you hand that future over on a golden platter to Tesla? Any serious car maker would rather develop their own software to remain relevant.
There are a lot of 2nd-tier car makers that realistically can't develop the talent or organizational structure to developer their own self driving tech. The Toyotas/Volkswagons/GMs of the world aren't going to license this (yet) but maybe the Subarus, Mazdas, Dacias, etc would if they thought it would it would be a differentiating factor.
There seems no balance in opinions when it comes to Tesla and Musk. It's either "Tesla is the greatest" or "Tesla is a Ponzi scheme".
Yes, Tesla has made some false claims in the past. Their car quality has squandered. But they are also producing EVs at scale, something considered next to impossible for a new car entrant. Model Y is the best selling car of any kind.
It's not a zero sum choice between "Destroy Tesla" vs "Save them at any cost".
Yes. I had the model s when it first came out. It was fantastic. Elon was a great model for an electric future. Then he kept lying and getting distracted. And then car manufacturing quality sort of never got really good. So I moved to the taycan when I wanted to get a new electric and it has been amazing.
I think it comes down to individual beliefs. For instance- explicit, malicious racism is the line for me. Don’t care about adultery, offering promotions for sex, orgies etc.
Some choice quotes from the decision based on facts proven in the case about endemic racism at the Fremont, California factory:
"This was the second jury that imposed such a high ratio, and its verdict is appropriate in light of the endemic racism at the Tesla factory and Tesla's repeated failure to rectify it."
"Diaz testified that at one point, Martinez threatened to physically attack him at work and yelled at him, “You [N-words] aren't S-H-I-T.” Tr. 3-610:2-612:7. Diaz complained to a supervisor, Ed Romero, and asked him to check the surveillance cameras, though Diaz's subsequent email complaint did not specifically mention racial insults. Tr. 3-612:8-614:23; see also Tr. 3-546:25-548:2 (Romero confirming this was recounted in an email). Tesla did not follow up, show Diaz the video, or interview witnesses after that event. Tr. 3-546:25-548:2, 612:8-614:23. Jackson testified that he interviewed Diaz and Martinez after the incident but did not interview the eyewitness, Rothaj Foster, because he was told by his boss to stop the investigation before it was complete. Tr. 2-387:10-390:18, 2-394:24-395:11. Jackson said he had “[v]ery little” control over how he investigated complaints. Tr. 2-396:8-397:12. Jackie Delgado Smith, a Human Resources representative, testified that Tesla HR was never told of the incident. Tr. 5-954:15-955:6. Subsequently, Diaz and Martinez were both given verbal warnings. Tr. 2395:21-396:7. Martinez still works at Tesla. Tr. 3-571:11."
"Diaz also testified that he complained to Romero several times about being called the N-word. Tr. 3-613:5-14. Romero agreed that he learned Diaz had been complaining about racist conduct, see Tr. 3-542:22-24, 543:13-14, though Romero said Diaz did not complain directly to Romero at least until the Timbreza incident, Tr. 3:561:1-4. Romero testified that he did not personally investigate Diaz's complaints and was specifically told by Tesla to not personally investigate the Timbreza incident. Tr. 3-541:22-542:1, 544:21-545:2, 549:13-550:16. Diaz and Romero both testified that Tesla never fired anyone for using the N-word. Tr. 3-552:10-19, 615:13-15."
"In addition to verbal harassment, Diaz encountered physical symbols of racism and hostility throughout his time at Tesla. On his second day at work, he saw racist graffiti in the bathroom, and continued to see the N-word and swastikas in bathrooms throughout the rest of his employment. Tr. 3-623:1-8. Another Black employee and later supervisor, Michael Wheeler, testified that he regularly saw racist graffiti, including the N-word and swastikas, and that Diaz reported the racist graffiti he saw to Wheeler. Tr. 2-346:17-347:17."
"As they did after the first trial, these factors again favor a high punitive damages award here. First and most importantly, Tesla's actions were grievously reprehensible. Diaz was subjected to a grossly racist workplace, with racist conduct perpetuated not only by coworkers or subordinates but also-and perhaps especially-by supervisors like Martinez, who called Diaz racist slurs and drew the racist picaninny, and Hurtado, who directed the N-word at Diaz over 30 times and informed Diaz that he wished he could get all “N-words” fired. Cf. Flores, 873 F.3d at 760; Zhang, 339 F.3d at 1043. Reports to authority often went unanswered and when the company responded, it often failed to interview witnesses or review security footage. Worse yet, a supervisor who learned of Diaz's complaints subsequently failed to investigate and was in fact told by Tesla to not personally investigate the complaint. Tr. 3-541:22-542:1, 544:21-545:2, 549:13-550:16. Another supervisor was told to stop investigating before he reached a conclusion, and Diaz and his harasser ended up being reprimanded for the conduct directed at Diaz. See Tr...
> We've decided to consolidate all of these stories into one place, because, speaking frankly, if we gave every FSD- or Autopilot-related incident its own post, we'd have to rename our publication from MotorTrend to TeslaFSDAutopilotCrashTrend.
The issue is very simple here, but it has nothing to do with technology.
The automotive road code is actually a very complicated thing, developed over long period of time. For example, here in California, the Caltrans organization has very large manuals about how to build things, and it’s really shaped by a whole lot of lawsuits that have happened over a very long period of time.
These legal and regulatory frameworks and case examples have some nebulous risk when it comes to a product like FSD and need time to adapt to the self driving liability and legal landscape.
One of the major things that’s holding up full self driving from a licensing perspective is this risk, with second movers waiting for the risk of this regulatory environment to unwind so that they don’t end up prematurely selecting a technology that hits a dead end or hitching themselves to a wagon that limits their options if things don’t go well.
It’s a lot slower than people realize, with the friends that I have that do this as a specialty looking at 2040 as a target, for example in one case, or 2035 with another. These are PEs. The people that that I know that are involved in these cases, as professional engineers, really, don’t see the legal and regulatory framework catching up with the technology for some time. This is often the case. The paperwork don’t catch up right away. ;)
So you can imagine that the idea of locking yourself into one companies’ntechnology, and hitching your investors cash to the risk profile of Tesla in particular, which is fairly high, is not real attractive when you’re still waiting to see how things turn out with the larger regulatory framework.
And that’s why you’re not gonna see a lot of people jumping in until market pressures make it so difficult that they have to, because the incentives push for them to delay as long as possible before making a commitment to see how things are headed.
What you’re saying may be true but let’s say hypothetically Tesla’s FSD was extremely good and the bee’s knees — car makers would work hard to overcome any obstacle just to get it.
But if the technology is kind of mid, their attempts will be lukewarm at best.
To add, if the company itself is risky, with wild outlandish statements by the CEO, other companies might say "well, he can gamble all he wants, but I cannot take this risk and help him at his gambles."
Maybe 10 years ago people would be willing to invest into musk, but after twitter people see his ability to truly lead / innovate as "companies may be succeeding despite him, not due to him".
So the reality is, it is all about risk. Tesla's tech may be hypothetically amazing, but Musk's history shows that he fakes the funk a lot, and nobody is willing to take the risk that he might be again.
Edit: Don't forget the golden rule of software dependency: If an API or Library you use fails, no client is going to look at it and say "yeah, its okay, this other company fucked up". No. You fucked up. And now "Ford self driving is a nightmare". And the next headline would be "Musk says Ford implemented FSD incorrectly". They will not accept that sort of risk.
Even if the license said that, would you trust Musk to honour that and not try to come up with excuses why the issue wasn’t with Tesla’s system, but something caused by the other car maker or driver?
A gimmick means they're doing it just for the attention, but even if it can't handle the challenging scenario of the Vietnam urban traffic environment, the fact that it is able to navigate traffic in the US means it's currently useful for the people that live there. if it's being used, it doesn't seem like it's just for the attention.
45 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 93.9 ms ] threadThat's because Musk has been lying about the state of full self-driving for years. False claims, staged videos, and continuous lies of "next year, for sure!" aren't a good way to go:
https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/
https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-video-promoting-sel...
In 2016 Tesla claimed "that, 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". That was a lie:
https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now...
Lying is part of the company culture at Tesla.
The original Youtube link is dead (I wonder why) but as far as I can tell that one's a faithful copy.
That is a huge continuity risk.
And yes, then there's the software itself...
This ambiguity is pretty important given Musk's questionable history of self-promotion and construction/adherence of contracts.
Presumably there will be a clause in the agreement that prevents this. Musk as erratic as he is, isn't going to ignore court orders. After all, he did eventually cough up the money to buy twitter.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/elon-musk-loses-bid-modify-thr...
>A federal appeals court on Monday rejected Elon Musk's bid to modify or end his 2018 securities fraud settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that required a Tesla Inc (TSLA.O), opens new tab lawyer to approve some of his tweets in advance.
Appealing a court decision is nowhere close to "ignoring court orders"
That sounds like a bad deal to me.
Yes, Tesla has made some false claims in the past. Their car quality has squandered. But they are also producing EVs at scale, something considered next to impossible for a new car entrant. Model Y is the best selling car of any kind.
It's not a zero sum choice between "Destroy Tesla" vs "Save them at any cost".
Tesla makes false claims in the present, even over things as trivial as quarter mile times:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRYS5VWXZts
https://insideevs.com/news/699260/tesla-cybertruck-porsche-r...
Lying is standard operating procedure for Musk and Tesla.
https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/
Where is the line then? What good justifies what "evil". Where is your line in the sand?
Some choice quotes from the decision based on facts proven in the case about endemic racism at the Fremont, California factory:
"This was the second jury that imposed such a high ratio, and its verdict is appropriate in light of the endemic racism at the Tesla factory and Tesla's repeated failure to rectify it."
"Diaz testified that at one point, Martinez threatened to physically attack him at work and yelled at him, “You [N-words] aren't S-H-I-T.” Tr. 3-610:2-612:7. Diaz complained to a supervisor, Ed Romero, and asked him to check the surveillance cameras, though Diaz's subsequent email complaint did not specifically mention racial insults. Tr. 3-612:8-614:23; see also Tr. 3-546:25-548:2 (Romero confirming this was recounted in an email). Tesla did not follow up, show Diaz the video, or interview witnesses after that event. Tr. 3-546:25-548:2, 612:8-614:23. Jackson testified that he interviewed Diaz and Martinez after the incident but did not interview the eyewitness, Rothaj Foster, because he was told by his boss to stop the investigation before it was complete. Tr. 2-387:10-390:18, 2-394:24-395:11. Jackson said he had “[v]ery little” control over how he investigated complaints. Tr. 2-396:8-397:12. Jackie Delgado Smith, a Human Resources representative, testified that Tesla HR was never told of the incident. Tr. 5-954:15-955:6. Subsequently, Diaz and Martinez were both given verbal warnings. Tr. 2395:21-396:7. Martinez still works at Tesla. Tr. 3-571:11."
"Diaz also testified that he complained to Romero several times about being called the N-word. Tr. 3-613:5-14. Romero agreed that he learned Diaz had been complaining about racist conduct, see Tr. 3-542:22-24, 543:13-14, though Romero said Diaz did not complain directly to Romero at least until the Timbreza incident, Tr. 3:561:1-4. Romero testified that he did not personally investigate Diaz's complaints and was specifically told by Tesla to not personally investigate the Timbreza incident. Tr. 3-541:22-542:1, 544:21-545:2, 549:13-550:16. Diaz and Romero both testified that Tesla never fired anyone for using the N-word. Tr. 3-552:10-19, 615:13-15."
"In addition to verbal harassment, Diaz encountered physical symbols of racism and hostility throughout his time at Tesla. On his second day at work, he saw racist graffiti in the bathroom, and continued to see the N-word and swastikas in bathrooms throughout the rest of his employment. Tr. 3-623:1-8. Another Black employee and later supervisor, Michael Wheeler, testified that he regularly saw racist graffiti, including the N-word and swastikas, and that Diaz reported the racist graffiti he saw to Wheeler. Tr. 2-346:17-347:17."
"As they did after the first trial, these factors again favor a high punitive damages award here. First and most importantly, Tesla's actions were grievously reprehensible. Diaz was subjected to a grossly racist workplace, with racist conduct perpetuated not only by coworkers or subordinates but also-and perhaps especially-by supervisors like Martinez, who called Diaz racist slurs and drew the racist picaninny, and Hurtado, who directed the N-word at Diaz over 30 times and informed Diaz that he wished he could get all “N-words” fired. Cf. Flores, 873 F.3d at 760; Zhang, 339 F.3d at 1043. Reports to authority often went unanswered and when the company responded, it often failed to interview witnesses or review security footage. Worse yet, a supervisor who learned of Diaz's complaints subsequently failed to investigate and was in fact told by Tesla to not personally investigate the complaint. Tr. 3-541:22-542:1, 544:21-545:2, 549:13-550:16. Another supervisor was told to stop investigating before he reached a conclusion, and Diaz and his harasser ended up being reprimanded for the conduct directed at Diaz. See Tr...
Even before taking Elon’s personality into account, I’m not surprised car manufacturers are staying clear.
Citation needed
https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/24/24049848/no-car-company-h...
> We've decided to consolidate all of these stories into one place, because, speaking frankly, if we gave every FSD- or Autopilot-related incident its own post, we'd have to rename our publication from MotorTrend to TeslaFSDAutopilotCrashTrend.
The automotive road code is actually a very complicated thing, developed over long period of time. For example, here in California, the Caltrans organization has very large manuals about how to build things, and it’s really shaped by a whole lot of lawsuits that have happened over a very long period of time.
These legal and regulatory frameworks and case examples have some nebulous risk when it comes to a product like FSD and need time to adapt to the self driving liability and legal landscape.
One of the major things that’s holding up full self driving from a licensing perspective is this risk, with second movers waiting for the risk of this regulatory environment to unwind so that they don’t end up prematurely selecting a technology that hits a dead end or hitching themselves to a wagon that limits their options if things don’t go well.
It’s a lot slower than people realize, with the friends that I have that do this as a specialty looking at 2040 as a target, for example in one case, or 2035 with another. These are PEs. The people that that I know that are involved in these cases, as professional engineers, really, don’t see the legal and regulatory framework catching up with the technology for some time. This is often the case. The paperwork don’t catch up right away. ;)
So you can imagine that the idea of locking yourself into one companies’ntechnology, and hitching your investors cash to the risk profile of Tesla in particular, which is fairly high, is not real attractive when you’re still waiting to see how things turn out with the larger regulatory framework.
And that’s why you’re not gonna see a lot of people jumping in until market pressures make it so difficult that they have to, because the incentives push for them to delay as long as possible before making a commitment to see how things are headed.
But if the technology is kind of mid, their attempts will be lukewarm at best.
Maybe 10 years ago people would be willing to invest into musk, but after twitter people see his ability to truly lead / innovate as "companies may be succeeding despite him, not due to him".
So the reality is, it is all about risk. Tesla's tech may be hypothetically amazing, but Musk's history shows that he fakes the funk a lot, and nobody is willing to take the risk that he might be again.
Edit: Don't forget the golden rule of software dependency: If an API or Library you use fails, no client is going to look at it and say "yeah, its okay, this other company fucked up". No. You fucked up. And now "Ford self driving is a nightmare". And the next headline would be "Musk says Ford implemented FSD incorrectly". They will not accept that sort of risk.
Is that true though? What legal framework do you have in mind? Immunity? That’s never going to happen.
I could see companies being nervous about this.
Based on the news, Elon Musk isn't even to be trusted to pay rent, severance packages, or even salaries.
Until then it is only a gimmick.
And car companies sure very critical for such things.