But it’s technically correct: the hardware is present. The software isn’t there yet, that’s true. So is this a “lie by omission”? Reading the whole page, there’s this quote: “It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available.” What else needs to be said?
At some point, critical thinking is required to navigate the world. The customer should ask “and when will the software catch up?” And I’ll concede that the overwhelming majority of the population doesn’t think like that. Should Tesla update the site with statements to confirm the negative cases? e.g. “Our software can’t yet do X, Y, Z, etc”
Since we have yet to build a system that is capable of "full self-driving ... at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver" I'm not even sure they can make the claim that their existing hardware supports this. They might have high hopes, but there's no way to know what combination of hardware and software will be necessary until the problem is actually solved.
Until tesla can provide a real world demonstration of an existing vehicle running at L5 automation after only a software upgrade, it's unproven whether the hardware required is present or not.
At some point, they will have to provide said demo or they will be facing a class action lawsuit that will bankrupt the company.
I don't even think a lot of people would even consider the software side when reading that sentence. To the layperson, "Full self-driving hardware on all cars" sounds exactly like "These cars are self-driving".
that's false too. how would one prove that the current shipped hardware is sufficient for autopilot? some hardware is present for sure, but is it all needed as they claim? they cannot know, since they don't have an autopilot using such hardware to achieve the stated goal. they believe it is sufficient, which is quite not the same as the claim and it is also being vocally challenged by experts that criticize the decision of omitting full lidar coverage
I would argue even if something is technically correct but deliberately misleading companies should get in trouble for it. Nobody has time or energy to learn about every single thing they may buy.
Also, how can we even know the hardware is sufficient unless said software exists and shows that what we think is possible is indeed possible?
> But it’s technically correct: the hardware is present. The software isn’t there yet, that’s true. So is this a “lie by omission”?
Some hardware is present, but that it is sufficient for full self-driving is simple speculation for which Tesla has no reasonable basis. The only way for them to know it is sufficient is to have self-driving implemented on it, which they obviously don't.
Its at best empty puffery and at most outright fraud, but in either case it's a knowingly unjustified claim, even if not knowingly false.
It's not a lie by omission, it's a lie. If you don't have the software then you don't know whether or not you have the hardware. It's only proven when it works.
At some point, critical thinking is required to navigate the world. The customer should ask “and when will the software catch up?” And I’ll concede that the overwhelming majority of the population doesn’t think like that. Should Tesla update the site with statements to confirm the negative cases? e.g. “Our software can’t yet do X, Y, Z, etc”