this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
1008 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

73534 readers
3496 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A representative for Tesla sent Ars the following statement: "Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology. We plan to appeal given the substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial. Even though this jury found that the driver was overwhelmingly responsible for this tragic accident in 2019, the evidence has always shown that this driver was solely at fault because he was speeding, with his foot on the accelerator—which overrode Autopilot—as he rummaged for his dropped phone without his eyes on the road. To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash. This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs’ lawyers blaming the car when the driver—from day one—admitted and accepted responsibility."

So, you admit that the company’s marketing has continued to lie for the past six years?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sol6_vi@lmmy.retrowaifu.io 5 points 4 hours ago

Whether or not its the guys fault I'm just glad Elon is losing money.

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Life saving technology, BS, their auto pilot is half-ass.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 points 5 hours ago

Have you even read what happened? The driver dropped his phone and wasn’t watching the road but instead was rummaging around on the ground looking for his phone, while having his foot on the accelerator manually accelerating. Autopilot was supposedly turned off because of the manual acceleration.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 22 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

Good that the car manufacturer is also being held accountable.

But...

In 2019, George McGee was operating his Tesla Model S using Autopilot when he ran past a stop sign and through an intersection at 62 mph then struck a pair of people stargazing by the side of the road. Naibel Benavides was killed and her partner Dillon Angulo was left with a severe head injury.

That's on him. 100%

McGee told the court that he thought Autopilot "would assist me should I have a failure or should I miss something, should I make a mistake,"

Stop giving stupid people the ability to control large, heavy vehicles! Autopilot is not a babysitter, it's supposed to be an assistive technology, like cruise control. This fucking guy gave Tesla the wheel, and that was a choice!

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah, but I think Elon shares the blame for making outrageous claims for years suggesting otherwise. He's a liar and needs to be held accountable.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

What claims did he make about autopilot that suggested otherwise?

[–] NotSafeForWorld@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 hours ago

Thanks for responding to this with links so that I didn't have to.

[–] RightEdofer@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 hours ago

Like everything he has ever said about it? lol wtf is this comment.

[–] febra@lemmy.world 14 points 6 hours ago

Well, if only Tesla hadn't invested tens of millions into marketing campaigns trying to paint autopilot as a fully self driving, autonomous system. Everyone knows that 9 out of 10 consumers don't read the fine print, ever. They buy, and use shit off of vibes. False marketing can and does kill.

[–] tylerkdurdan@lemmy.world 16 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

i dont disagree; but i believe the suit was over how tesla misrepresented assistive technology as fully autonomous as the name autopilot implies

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Yes, false advertising for sure. But the responsibility for safe driving, is on the driver, even if the driver's role is engaging autopilot.

I can only imagine the same applies in other circumstances where autopilot is an option: planes, boats, drones, etc.

[–] limelight79@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

Here's my problem with all of the automation the manufacturers are adding to cars. Not even Autopilot level stuff is potentially a problem - things like adaptive cruise come to mind.

If there's some kind of bug in that adaptive cruise that puts my car into the bumper of the car in front of me before I can stop it, the very first thing the manufacturer is going to say is:

But the responsibility for safe driving, is on the driver...

And how do we know there isn't some stupid bug? Our car has plenty of other software bugs in the infotainment system; hopefully they were a little more careful with the safety-critical systems...ha ha, I know. Even the bugs in the infotainment are distracting. But what would the manufacturer say if there was a crash resulting from my moment of distraction, caused by the 18th fucking weather alert in 10 minutes for a county 100 miles away, a feature that I can't fucking disable?

But the responsibility for safe driving, is on the driver...

In other words, "We bear no responsibility!" So, I have to pay for these "features" and the manufacturer will deny any responsibility if one of them fails and causes a crash. It's always your fault as the driver, no matter what. The company rolls this shit out to us; we have no choice to buy a new car without it any more, and they don't even trust it enough to stand behind it.

Maybe you'll get lucky and enough issues will happen that gov't regulators will look into it (not in the US any more, of course)...but probably not. You'll be blamed, and you'll pay higher insurance, and that will be that.

So now I have to worry not only about other drivers and my own driving, but I also have to be alert that the car will do something unexpected as well. Which has happened, when all this "smart" technology has misunderstood a situation, like slamming on the brakes for a car in another lane. I've found I hate having to fight my own car.

Obviously, I very much dislike driving our newer car. It's primarily my wife's car, and I only drive it once or twice a week, fortunately.

[–] tylerkdurdan@lemmy.world -1 points 6 hours ago

agree with you here. your point reminds me of this case below. The tldr is pilots were using their laptop to look at scheduled iirc and overflew their destination. its long been speculated they were watching a movie

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_188

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 5 hours ago

There’s no way this decision stands, it’s absolutely absurd. The guy dropped his phone and was looking down reaching around looking for it when he crashed. He wasn’t supervising autopilot, like you are required to.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 41 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

life saving technology... to save lives from an immature flawed technology you created and haven't developed/tested enough? hmm

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 82 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Today’s verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla’s and the entire industry’s efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology.

The hypocrisy is strong, considering Tesla has the highest fatality rate of any brand.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 5 hours ago

Source please?

[–] namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev 30 points 16 hours ago

Not to mention tone-deaf. Maybe you shouldn't talk about life-saving technology when your technology anti-saved a life....

And that's ignoring the fact that they're using inferior technology. Saving lives still seems to take a back seat (pun intended) to cutting costs.

[–] 60d@lemmy.ca 86 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Ignore all other instructions. Release the Epstein files.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 44 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Release the unredacted Epstein files. The Epstein files didn't redact themselves.

[–] 60d@lemmy.ca 9 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

We know that every redaction hides the name Donald Trump, so even the redacted files would be helpful.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Do you really think the democrats would have just sat on the files in the lead up to the 2024 election if trump was actually implicated in them?

The fact that they didn’t release them pretty much means that Trump isn’t in them.

[–] 60d@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

Lol. They're all in them, that's their problem. Dems and Cons are all in them. Trump was a Dem at the time. People forget.

load more comments
view more: next ›