[postmeta]

The CEO's forward looking vision statements are not the same as spec sheets or a product user manual.

The website never said robotaxi. The manual never said robotaxi. The app never said robotaxi.

The CEO thinks it can be a robotaxi at some point in the future pending regulatory approval. (he has said it many times)

How is it illegal for the CEO to have a vision for the future of the product?

[peutetre]

> The CEO's forward looking vision statements

They aren't vision statements. At this point they are just continuous lies, and lies that are no longer forward looking. The false claims are old and stale.

In 2016 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". That was a lie: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now...

In October, 2019 Musk said, "Next year for sure, we will have over a million robotaxis on the road. The fleet wakes up with an over-the-air update. That's all it takes." That was a lie: https://www.thedrive.com/news/38129/elon-musk-promised-1-mil...

Tesla lies routinely with with faked full self-driving videos: https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-video-promoting-sel...

And even dumber faked quarter miles: https://insideevs.com/news/699260/tesla-cybertruck-porsche-r...

The lies are a decade old: https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/

But it's all fine because Tesla claims its lies are constitutionally protected speech under the 1st Amendment. So that's a nice, not-warped-or-twisted-or-deranged-at-all perspective: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-12-11/tesla-dmv-...

[postmeta]

Everything you quote is Musk's goals for the future he wants to implement.

The website where you buy the car never said it was capable of that.

Nobody thought it was a robotaxi when they bought it.

[peutetre]

> Everything you quote is Musk's goals

His goals that he lied about. His goals that he had set specific timelines for that were not, and are still not, achieved.

Musk is a liar. He lies.

> Nobody thought it was a robotaxi when they bought it.

Plenty of people drank the Kool-Aid. They were lied to and they believed it. They believed the lie enough to put money down for this false "vision".

They really should demand their money back.

[Veserv]

Even according to the extremely strict standards for fraud in the US, around the time you make unequivocal statements.

In 2019:“ I think we will be feature-complete full self-driving this year, meaning the car will be able to find you in a parking lot, pick you up, take you all the way to your destination without an intervention — this year. I would say that I am certain of that. That is not a question mark." [1].

That was after 5 years of development. Now, another 5 years later (10 years total) and they have still failed to achieve even basic capabilities like understanding and obeying safety-critical Road Closed and Do Not Enter signs. They have failed to make it fully self-drive in their literal one-lane tunnel under Las Vegas. There is a gigantic gap between vision and fraud; it just so happens Tesla is the world champion shark jumper.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-doubles-down-on-cl...

[hwbunny]

The problem is people believed that, including journalists :DDD

[saghm]

> How is it illegal for the CEO to have a vision for the future of the product?

It's not, but naming your product to intentionally mislead people into thinking that it's the present of the product is

[croes]

>The CEO thinks it can be a robotaxi at some point in the future pending regulatory approval.

The problem isn't approval but Tesla's capabilities. They don't get an approval because FSD doesn't work but they already sell it to customers.

That's not a vision that's fraud.

[cma]

It did indeed say a future update would make your car eligible for the tesla network as a robotaxi, then they later removed the language.

Here's the diff:

https://www.thedrive.com/content-b/message-editor%2F15519938...

https://www.thedrive.com/tech/26840/tesla-transforms-full-se...

[BoorishBears]

It was literally called "Full Self-Driving".

[clhodapp]

It's not pending regulatory approval, it's pending developing an actual full self driving system. Elon Musk didn't want to pay for the sensors that were needed to do it properly, so now they're competitive with similar-hardware Mobileye-based level two systems instead of Waymo's level four system.

[threeseed]

Tesla hasn't used the term robotaxi in official material.

But they do regularly use the term "full self driving" which it definitely does not do.

[Veserv]

Yes they have.

Tesla Autonomy Investor Day 2019

https://www.youtube.com/live/Ucp0TTmvqOE?si=blLBL58Qv_qjwcAn

At 3:13:41. Robotaxis is clearly written on that slide. Elon Musk is talking about robotaxis for minutes as well during the official presentation to investors.

[Grustaf]

I suppose you could argue that as long as the car is doing the driving, it is in fact full self driving, even if you have to watch it?

[kelnos]

No, you can't argue that. No reasonable person would see "full self-driving" and assume it means they have to watch it like a hawk instead of taking a nap or watching a movie.

Well, at least no reasonable person before Musk had normalized this garbage.

My (non-Tesla) car has adaptive cruise and lane-keeping, and it works quite well. The car is certainly "doing the driving" to some extent, but "full self-driving? No, definitely not.

[Grustaf]

It’s not “full”, since it only works in very limited circumstances.

[almost_usual]

By that definition any car with cruise control is “full self driving”.

[ta8645]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but cruise control doesn't turn off the highway, drive down surface streets, obey streetlights and signs, and navigate you home on its own.

[Grustaf]

Cruise control only manages the speed, right?