-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Will Tesla sue Dan O'Dowd?
- Thread starter Daniel in SD
- Start date
Tam
Well-Known Member
Elon Musk has been getting positive results in court, such as the "pedo" lawsuit, FSD name in German Court...
Thus, there's no reason to stop him from suing Dan O'Dowd.
However, the lawsuit will fail because no one has been able to prove Tesla Collision Avoidance Technology has matured enough to pass Dan O'Dowd's test.
Those who passed the tests with their own children didn't count because Dan O'Dowd didn't use real kids, he used mannequins.
He and Tesla were the defendants in those cases. Big difference between that and suing for defamation, the burden of proof is on Tesla. And Dan O'Dowd claims he never said Teslas would always hit children only that they did three times in his test.
His test was definitely interesting. I'd really be interested to see that exact same test with a variety of other cars - could Ford, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, GM pass his test?
Edit: Why doesn't he have a page saying Ford and Hyundai kill children?
Edit: Why doesn't he have a page saying Ford and Hyundai kill children?
They might or they might require a slightly different dummy or situation. All of them (including Tesla) pass the standardized tests though!
Like I keep saying it's easy to pass a test when you know the questions in advance.The complaint with FSD is that it drives the car and should therefore be held to a higher standard.
number of children hit = number of children not seen by driver * (1-AEB/FSD performance)
The argument is that because FSD feels like it's driving the car it will cause the driver to be less engaged and pay less attention to the road. So far that does not seem to be an issue with FSD beta (because it's so bad at driving).
That's a good point - I treat the system like a driver assistance. Like adaptive cruise control or even old-school cruise control. If people are becoming complacent, then it does cause a problem. That puts L2 in a tricky position - no matter how much you beg the driver to be attentive and in control, they will become lax the more they use it.They might or they might require a slightly different dummy or situation. All of them (including Tesla) pass the standardized tests though!
The complaint with FSD is that it drives the car and should therefore be held to a higher standard.
number of children hit = number of children not seen by driver * (1-AEB/FSD performance)
The argument is that because FSD feels like it's driving the car it will cause the driver to be less engaged and pay less attention to the road. So far that does not seem to be an issue with FSD beta (because it's so bad at driving).
I've got it!!!! Shock collars!! Attention drifting? BZZZZZZZ!!!!
Tam
Well-Known Member
The criteria to pass the AAA test were:
1) The maximum speed of 30 MPH (Dan O'Dowd's set at 40 MPH).
2) No need to avoid a collision: A speed reduction of 5 MPH would count as passing (Dan O'Dowd's passing grade is: no collisions).
Dan O'Dowd didn't adhere to AAA passing grades. He sabotaged AAA's standard of passing.
Last edited:
Tam
Well-Known Member
The explanation is very simple.
When Elon Musk claimed he's a "Free Speech Absolutist," that prompted others to prove that he's not.
When Tesla claims it can sell you Full Self Dring for a price of $15,000, that would prompt others to prove that it can not drive on its own.
GM Super Cruise never said it could do the way Tesla could: drive on its own, summon from across the country, earn money to pick up rides while the driver is sleeping at home, and its value alone is $100,000, not the cheap bargain of $15,000.
If GM made those claims, others would prove why those are false.
Instead, GM said its Super Cruise is a hands-off/eyes-on ADAS system, which was proven on the very first day when people paid for the system and that was 5 years ago since 2017.
yerEVan
Active Member
He never claimed it could. He promised it “would”. Big difference.
With Tesla any publicity is good publicity. To me this just looks like a pissing contest between two rich guys with big egos.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
IIHS does std tests and Tesla passed every time.
But Elon’s been mostly not good in the court. The example you sited were the exceptions. Unless they have definitive proof of fraud (not unlikely), they won’t win. If they do have proof, Dan will lose like Alex Jones - you can’t fraudulently lie to get clicks/publicity.
sleepydoc
Well-Known Member
Ah - but now you're falling into the 'but the other guys are just as bad as we are' trap. It may be true that other companies' cars also fail but that's irrelevant. The real question is whether DoD rigged the test and/or made false and misleading claims.
except it's FSDb. you forgot the beta part, as well as the part that says the driver is still in charge and supposed to pay attention.
Believing in free speech does not mean you don't believe there should also be consequences for your speech. I believe in free speech, too, but if your speech injures someone else you should also be held accountable. You can't have rights without responsibilities.
Tesla very clearly states that the system it sells under the name of "Full Self Driving" cannot safely drive itself, i.e. is not actually what its name says. Tesla says that left on its own, without human supervision and intervention as needed, FSD will hit things and people. So if someone said that FSD will hit children, Tesla is already on record saying that's true. Tesla says that if you pay your $15K (?) some day it will be able to drive itself, but not yet.
I've not been following the progress, but the last time I looked, the people with FSD Beta were saying the system is really, really good, but still decades away from being truly driverless. The videos I've seen are impressive, but they're on perfect streets. Not even the biggest FSD fanboy would try using FSD on South Kihei Road, which is the only non-highway street running the length of Kihei, HI. A truly "full self-driving" car would have to be able to drive on this street, and it will be decades before Tesla FSD can.
To its credit, Tesla tells you that FSD isn't really fsd.
I've not been following the progress, but the last time I looked, the people with FSD Beta were saying the system is really, really good, but still decades away from being truly driverless. The videos I've seen are impressive, but they're on perfect streets. Not even the biggest FSD fanboy would try using FSD on South Kihei Road, which is the only non-highway street running the length of Kihei, HI. A truly "full self-driving" car would have to be able to drive on this street, and it will be decades before Tesla FSD can.
To its credit, Tesla tells you that FSD isn't really fsd.
My point was that it reduces DoD credibility further that he doesn't have pages about other car companies "killing children". It informs people that he's just out for Tesla and doesn't really care as much about children being hit by cars.
He probably can't. His contracts to provide software to the other car companies probably precludes him from disparaging them.
I didn’t say it was my argument. I was merely stating what the argument is. I don’t think the error rate of FSD beta has a simple relationship with the safety of FSD beta. It’s definitely nothing like automatic emergency braking systems.
Dan O’Dowd says Tesla has deployed FSD but that’s a lie. Deployed in the context of self-driving cars means there is no driver at all. It’s still in beta for obvious reasons.
Someone doing more testing of FSD Beta and dummies in the road:
He even setup some, short, cones. His dummies do appear taller than Dan's.
He even setup some, short, cones. His dummies do appear taller than Dan's.
I'll be curious to see that same test repeated on 10.69.2. A few testers are showing unidentified objects as grey blobs on 10.69.0 - I wonder if the initial dummy that doesn't show up at all on visualizations will show up as a grey blob on the road.
Similar threads
- Article
