My request that the Arizona Attorney General's office investigate Tesla's changes to Ludicrous Mode

[Walta]

That's a super simplified statement about negative reinforcement and/or punishment as a training/retraining tactic, which tells me you don't actually train/retrain aggressive predator fish like sharks. Or aggressive dogs or aggressive horses, or, or, or.

First of all, predators react to negative stimuli different than prey animals. Prey animals can typically be taught to change behavior easily by using negative reinforcement and/or punishment, however the change is often accompanied by negative results; fear, anxiety, uncertainty, lack of confidence etc... Whereas simply ignoring the undesirable behavior in a prey animal and then using positive reinforcement by praising wanted behaviors results in an animal that is relaxed and looking for more ways to get along and please. They'll stop the unwanted behaviors and repeated the wanted behaviors in a desire to get more positive reinforcement. Predators on the other hand will often simply just up their aggression when challenged through unpleasant experiences. They'll fight right back if you get up in their faces. Poke a shark and you'll piss him off. And if he happens to be really hungry at the time, you'll have to mortally wound him to get him to let go of your leg. In the end, would be just easier for all parties if you'd thrown a bone to the shark and let it be.

And Canuck is right; a shark will always behave like a shark just as a corporation will always behave as a corporation (even though that corporation is made up of a bunch of people, who may have an entirely different view of things.) Think of it in terms of a bunch of good, happy go lucky people go to a football game and now become a crowd. Some individuals in the crowd have a few beers, the refs make a few bad calls, a few of those happy go lucky people aren't so happy go lucky anymore and start booing and throwing beer cans, and then more happy go lucky people (the ones who tend to be followers in life) join in, and so on. Before you know it, there's a riot and the *crowd* made up of happy go lucky people has an entirely new life all of its own.

Good info.. Thanks.

I see your point. And even though I would hope positive reinforcement would work with Tesla? I tried that approach already, and just as you pointed out - a corporation will always act like a corporation. To date - the only way for me to get a positive result from a complaint with Tesla was to go the legal route. I was VERY patient and agreeable for an entire year over a battery range issue, resulting in nothing from Tesla. Once I enlisted legal support - and I told Tesla - it took 20 minutes for Tesla to agree to replace my battery. Lesson learned.

 

[Krugerrand]

Good info.. Thanks.

I see your point. And even though I would hope positive reinforcement would work with Tesla? I tried that approach already, and just as you pointed out - a corporation will always act like a corporation. To date - the only way for me to get a positive result from a complaint with Tesla was to go the legal route. I was VERY patient and agreeable for an entire year over a battery range issue, resulting in nothing from Tesla. Once I enlisted legal support - and I told Tesla - it took 20 minutes for Tesla to agree to replace my battery. Lesson learned.

Yep, that happens. A lot of times it's the simple matter that you're talking to a person that doesn't have any power to do for you. Most complaint/service departments and such consist of people whose job it is to take the complaint, record it, and say whatever they have to say to get you off the phone. I never want to talk to those people unless I'm in a mood to chit chat about the weather in Bangladesh. I'm always looking for the person with the power *to do*. In your case, enlisting legal support got you immediately to the person with power.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

NO mechanical device will survive constant maximum-performance demands for an extended period of time... If you try to win a court case based on constantly demanding top performance out of your Tesla, you will most probably lose.

Fortunately that's not what the court case would be about. It would be about Tesla changing the performance characteristics of your vehicle after purchase and without your permission. It's one thing if the hardware components caused a natural degradation in performance over time, it's entirely different when that degradation is an intentional act by the manufacturer that is determined artificially via software and has nothing to do with the actual state of your vehicle's hardware.

 

[TIppy]

They'll fight right back if you get up in their faces. Poke a shark and you'll piss him off.

You guys just make this crap up as you go along. The suggested way to fend off a shark is to poke it with a sharp object(spear gun) around the eyes, gills, or nose.

Dogs are predators and they respond to both reward and punishment training just like all animals that have survived hostile environments through evolution. If you don't avoid dangerous stimuli, you don't survive. If its your pet, I would suggest rewards. But I don't particularly care if Tesla suffers fear, anxiety, uncertainty, lack of confidence etc after they have behaved unscrupulously.

 

[TIppy]

And Canuck is right; a shark will always behave like a shark

So, now you are saying there is no training a shark with either reward or punishment. Show me some documentation that indicates that sharks are untrainable.

 

[azdryheat]

Not that I have seen. The listings are collected here.
Fast Tesla Model-Ss 1/4 Mile 0-60 Drag Racing - DragTimes.com

Most of those are probably with pano, and they even be lugging around UHF and their UMC etc. But TRC and another car did 10.8. and there is a V2 with a pano and driven by a lumberjack of a guy did 11.0.

So few people take their cars to the drag strip (understandably -- it's an odd and risky place) -- which is about the only place any of these alleged changes would even be noticable (aside from a screen on power tools).

I'd like to see az dry explain his damages:
"How do you know the car is slower sir?"
"Well it shows fewer kw on the power tools app"
"Yes, but how do you know the car is slower? How do you know the car can't achieve advertised specs?"
"Umm Powertools .. the kw number is lower .. powertools. "
"Where was a kw peak power advertised? "
"Umm Powertools.. Powertools. Powertools"

Tesla has admitted they have reduced power. The question is it is legal.
Also software licenses are much different. I have looked and can't find any language that I was given that allows Tesla to do this. I would welcome anyone who finds something different to let me know.

 

[Krugerrand]

You guys just make this crap up as you go along. The suggested way to fend off a shark is to poke it with a sharp object(spear gun) around the eyes, gills, or nose.

I haven't made anything up. But hey, feel free to go poke a shark and report back. I also suggest you a) don't miss, and b) poke real hard.

Dogs are predators and they respond to both reward and punishment training just like all animals that have survived hostile environments through evolution.

Dogs are BOTH predator and prey. If you choose to regularly punish, more often than not you risk turning the dog into an outright predator like the shark. But hold on a second while I go ask my neighbor how their predator Pug survived the hostile environment of selective breeding since Confucius' time.

If you don't avoid dangerous stimuli, you don't survive.

You do realize that not all 'dangerous stimuli' is life ending, right?

But I don't particularly care if Tesla suffers fear, anxiety, uncertainty, lack of confidence etc after they have behaved unscrupulously.

Yes, I realize that. It doesn't, however, have anything to do with your inaccurate characterization of how to change behavior in sharks, dogs or corporations.

 

[Krugerrand]

So, now you are saying there is no training a shark with either reward or punishment. Show me some documentation that indicates that sharks are untrainable.

You should stop typing on this subject matter. A shark always behaving like a shark has nothing to do with trainability. But hey, I'll show you my documentation when you show me the documentation that shows you can teach a shark to behave like a donkey.

Or a pig.
Or a baboon.
Or a cat.
Or a budgie.

I don't care. Pick any other animal that exists on the planet. Heck, I'll even take a shark that behaves like an octopus.

 

[stopcrazypp]

You guys just make this crap up as you go along. The suggested way to fend off a shark is to poke it with a sharp object(spear gun) around the eyes, gills, or nose.

Dogs are predators and they respond to both reward and punishment training just like all animals that have survived hostile environments through evolution. If you don't avoid dangerous stimuli, you don't survive. If its your pet, I would suggest rewards. But I don't particularly care if Tesla suffers fear, anxiety, uncertainty, lack of confidence etc after they have behaved unscrupulously.

I think that was incorporated in the argument. You can use a sharp object, but that damages, cripples, or kills the shark. Also, it is only a temporary measure that fends the shark off for this time. This does not train them to stop the behavior the next time. However, analogies seem to be a poor way to discuss this.

More directly is to just discuss the effect of "negative reinforcement". The core goal is to stop the corporation from attempting such measures in the first place. This typically requires a complete change in corporate culture/management. That's something civil lawsuits probably aren't effective in accomplishing unless the amounts involved are enough to seriously threaten the survival of the company (where key people involved in the policies are fired) or the company actually admits wrongdoing as part of the suit and promises changes. However, most civil suits are settled with the company admitting absolutely no wrongdoing, which means no actions to make changes.

Criminal suits (like the GM ignition switches, Takata airbags, VW emissions scandal etc) may be able to do that, but nothing Tesla has done so far has really reached the criminal level.

What can happen with the "negative reinforcement" is they lawyer up further and try to introduce more legal disclaimers and agreements. One example is Tesla so far does not have a EULA yet (which is an advantage to the consumer), but they may begin to introduce one to allow them more legal protection in doing things like this.

On the flip side though, I can see that it is hard to "positively reinforce" a policy to not make OTA changes that have any possibility of negative effects. The mechanism the consumer has to reward companies is purchasing products from them. Not sure how to translate that to cause a change in a company that violates such a policy (although it is possible to reward a new company that has that as a policy).

I will say that for the people who see Jon's update as a reasonable compromise (it still allows users to access the power, albeit only in launch model, while Tesla has taken up the responsibility of fixing packs rather than just permanently limiting power), they would be seeing it as negative reinforcement against making compromises of that nature.

 

[stopcrazypp]

AFAIK, not on this issue yet.

@CurrentRide I'm curious why you rated me disagree on this. Did you or are you aware of someone who sued Tesla about this issue about the Ludicrous limit?

AFAIK, there was only a lawsuit over autopilot, but not one over this yet, but feel free to correct me if this is not the case.

 

[TIppy]

But hey, feel free to go poke a shark and report back. I also suggest you a) don't miss, and b) poke real hard.

Have done several times while scuba diving. When they get a little too curious, you just have to give them a firm push with the sharp end and they immediately move off.

You should stop typing on this subject matter. A shark always behaving like a shark has nothing to do with trainability. But hey, I'll show you my documentation when you show me the documentation that shows you can teach a shark to behave like a donkey.

Or a pig.
Or a baboon.
Or a cat.
Or a budgie.

I don't care. Pick any other animal that exists on the planet. Heck, I'll even take a shark that behaves like an octopus.

Octopuses eat lion fish. Sharks don't. Sharks are being trained to eat lion fish to control their population.

 

[Canuck]

It's up to you to support your unsubstantiated claims.

Why do I have to be held to a higher standard than the President of the United States? ...

 

[TIppy]

You do realize that not all 'dangerous stimuli' is life ending, right?

You do realize that some of them are, right?

 

[TIppy]

Why do I have to be held to a higher standard than the President of the United States? ...

I concede.

 

[TIppy]

Dogs are BOTH predator and prey

Aren't we all. And both reward and punishment work.

 

[Canuck]

So I'm at the Blue Moose coffee house supercharging now on the way to my cabin and I never got over 90 kW. Damn shark corporations! Also, the car said 4 out 6 stalls available but all were empty. It's the start of a long weekend here and the number 1 highway out of Vancouver to the interior was bumper to bumper traffic -- yet no one but me at the Hope Supercharger. These are the glory days of EV ownership! (Well, maybe not at some of the California superchargers on a long weekend -- but it still is here).

 

[TIppy]

I think that was incorporated in the argument. You can use a sharp object, but that damages, cripples, or kills the shark. Also, it is only a temporary measure that fends the shark off for this time. This does not train them to stop the behavior the next time. However, analogies seem to be a poor way to discuss this.

More directly is to just discuss the effect of "negative reinforcement". The core goal is to stop the corporation from attempting such measures in the first place. This typically requires a complete change in corporate culture/management. That's something civil lawsuits probably aren't effective in accomplishing unless the amounts involved are enough to seriously threaten the survival of the company (where key people involved in the policies are fired) or the company actually admits wrongdoing as part of the suit and promises changes. However, most civil suits are settled with the company admitting absolutely no wrongdoing, which means no actions to make changes.

Criminal suits (like the GM ignition switches, Takata airbags, VW emissions scandal etc) may be able to do that, but nothing Tesla has done so far has really reached the criminal level.

What can happen with the "negative reinforcement" is they lawyer up further and try to introduce more legal disclaimers and agreements. One example is Tesla so far does not have a EULA yet (which is an advantage to the consumer), but they may begin to introduce one to allow them more legal protection in doing things like this.

On the flip side though, I can see that it is hard to "positively reinforce" a policy to not make OTA changes that have any possibility of negative effects. The mechanism the consumer has to reward companies is purchasing products from them. Not sure how to translate that to cause a change in a company that violates such a policy (although it is possible to reward a new company that has that as a policy).

I will say that for the people who see Jon's update as a reasonable compromise (it still allows users to access the power, albeit only in launch model, while Tesla has taken up the responsibility of fixing packs rather than just permanently limiting power), they would be seeing it as negative reinforcement against making compromises of that nature.

I think we've pretty much strained the shark analogy to the limits here. The point is, as Walta and Sorka have pointed out in the previous thread, sometimes you have to use legal remedies to get results.

How are we better off without EULAs. They're doing what ever the hell the want to now. At least with an EULA, the consumer knows where they stand and can make an informed decision--before they buy.

 

[jeffro01]

Seriously? Tesla has never had that goal, never stated they had that goal, and have demonstrated at every opportunity that they are not concerned about that goal.

Their goals are admirable, as are their products, but making money isn't one of them.

Name ONE other publicly traded company who's end goal isn't to make money for shareholders? You can't... Don't be naive...

Jeff

 

[AnxietyRanger]

So I'm at the Blue Moose coffee house supercharging now on the way to my cabin and I never got over 90 kW.

Now now, have we been DC charging too much...

 

[AnxietyRanger]

On the flip side though, I can see that it is hard to "positively reinforce" a policy to not make OTA changes that have any possibility of negative effects. The mechanism the consumer has to reward companies is purchasing products from them. Not sure how to translate that to cause a change in a company that violates such a policy (although it is possible to reward a new company that has that as a policy).

I would argue a soft bellweather for companies (both negative and positive) are enthusiast gathering places like TMC.

We know Tesla reads. They know how their actions are perceived. Keeping that messaging strong and on-going can have an effect both to the positive and negative.

That's why I so dislike the corporate excusal the likes of @Canuck support. Far better for both us and Tesla is keeping that bellweather as clear as possible.

The enthusiast reaction should IMO both punish and reward as appropriate. It can have some effect.