Tesla Again Paints a Misleading Story with Their Crash Data
forbes.com
forbes.com
Normally I'd expect the fact that they aren't losing these suits regularly to factor as a prior in people's opinions about the cars' safety. But I've also been in enough of these threads to know that it's actually all about people's opinions of the CEO and not the product.
Unless you can show in court that their system was defective. It is designed to not be able to do the full driving task, to need interventions. It performs as designed.
Except, notably, the one you want to yell about the most. I'm just saying that should maybe be part of your analysis.
Look. The cars are safe. We've been having the same argument, again and again, for years and years now. People show up in these threads just taking as a given that these systems are unsafe, and refuse to adjust that prior as these cars become some of the most popular products as a market.
[1] What were perceived as -- IIRC it's since been argued that the problem in the suit didn't actually exist. And they settled anyway!
I think the fact that it has supporters is because of the CEO, not the fact that it has detractors, though I'm sure some are more vehement because of the CEO.
It's amazing. The most fun I've had in a vehicle in my whole life, and absolutely worth the purchase price. I'm sorry you aren't impressed, really, and I genuinely can't understand why there's so much hate about something so great.
But none of that is relevant here. The question at hand is "is it safe?", and the clear answer is "yes, quite".
It may be fun for you but its not fun for all the other people on the road put at risk by Tesla owners that dont know the limitations of their vehicles.
No thanks, that shouldn't be allowed on public roads.
I grew up in the US, in the 1970s-80s, when we had [optional] seatbelts, that would cut you in half, and snap your spine, exploding [leaded] gas tanks, glass that would slice you to ribbons, and steering wheels that would impale the drivers.
It's always been retroactive. Ralph Nader made his name on Unsafe at Any Speed[0].
Money speaks very loudly in the US, and we have always been willing to sacrifice quite a few things (as long as the non-money-makers are making the sacrifices), and take huge risks (as long as the non-money-makers are taking the risks), for money. It's just the way we are.
No, "controlled conditions" don't do a very good job of training or proving an AI. Supervised cars on actual roads is the way it has to be.
That's the most sound policy, provide the public with alternative means of transportation that are convenient and more environment-friendly, leave room on the streets for the ones that actually require a car for their transportation. If you leave in the middle of bumfuck nowhere and can't be served by public transportation, great, you probably need a car. If you drive your car in cities for trips of 5-10km because it's convenient then we, as a society, should find ways to disincentivise this usage.
Modern car crash test into older car.
The linked article is literally about the data Tesla provides showing that their vehicles are safe, and it doesn't even refute the conclusions. It's about nitpicking at the margins.
To be clear: Tesla's data says autopilot use is about an order of magnitude safer than human driving. The author complains that this is confounded by the fact that AP is used in different conditions where the baseline accident rate is lower.
You need a lot of confounding effect to make up for an order of magnitude delta! Seems like everyone wants to skip that part and yell about the CEO instead.
The cars are safe. They are extremely common vehicles now. If they were unsafe we would know. We know they are safe. Any argument needs to treat with this truth, or it's basically just a conspiracy theory.
The article is not nitpicking at the margins. It's showing how Tesla is making misleading claims out of their insufficient data by not accounting for operating conditions. That's literally how Tesla is claiming Autopilot is "an order of magnitude safer than human driving".
> You need a lot of confounding effect to make up for an order of magnitude delta!
Or you could just make misleading comparisons to claim that. That's pretty easy too.
Which, fine. Everyone does bad marketing, there's lots to yell about. Maybe consider yelling about the deceptive marketing practices of a product you do use? There are lots to choose from.
"Show us unbiased data proving it"
"If it were unsafe, we would know"
Sigh.
I own a Tesla and use FSD, but thanks for assuming.
What the linked article is doing is just excuse-making, basically.
I get it. You want to take the data at face value without questioning anything.
I'm not saying take it at face value at all. I'm happy to discuss methodology and to admit that the numbers on Tesla's site amount to something closer to marketing than science. But nonetheless, the cars remain safe. This methodology would have to be outrageously confounded to produce a result like this for an unsafe car, and you know it.
Dude, you couldn't even get the date of the article right.
I would assume medicines have similar or higher levels of complexity involved. However, the medicine analogy is poor. We often release medicines for use even when they have incredibly harmful side-effects. We do the testing to quantify and understand those side-effects, not prove that each medicine does exactly what it should with no side effects.
A good general overview from two minute papers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hkiTejoyms Tesla's AI Day 2022 video, timestamped around labeling and simulation https://youtu.be/ODSJsviD_SU?t=6037
There are human trials for drugs as well, but those are only the latest phase, and with explicit permission.
Wouldn't that also be true of your medicine analogy? If someone takes an experimental medicine but experiences an unknown side effect and passes out while driving, isn't the risk profile equivalent?
That hypothetical certainly is far less probable than the Autopilot case, but for any experiment that takes place outside controlled conditions, there can always be unknown and unforeseen consequences that affect people who have not given explicit consent to being part of said experiment.
To argue that we cannot test things unless all potentially-involved parties have given consent is to argue for an impossibility. There is always some small amount of risk of higher-order consequences.
I would even go further and say that arguing for such is an unnecessarily conservative approach that hamstrings any attempt at improving the world. See, for example, this commentary on the current state of IRBs [1]
[1] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-from-overs...
Also, the “danger to others” aspect is even then negligible as opposed to some faulty software controlling a ton of steel/battery in a system that depends heavily on predictable behavior of each other.
I guess I don't understand your argument. We put faulty humans in control of a ton of steel/battery in the same system all the time; humans have the disadvantage that when lessons are learned, they aren't transferrable without great amounts of effort. Self-driving systems can share learnings across the whole fleet with software updates, which seems like a strictly better solution in the long term.
It seems like you're making perfect the enemy of "better".
If it showed things were better than average it would fit their message and I’d expect them to publish it.
If it showed things were average it would not fit their narrative. If it showed things were worse it would contradict their narrative.
Seems like there is only one reason to withhold numbers or publish them in a misleading way. They prove your claims that your tech is way safer wrong in some way.
Like...maybe it's fine. But even at 0 fatal crashes in 5 billion miles they won't have a strong argument that a more widely deployed FSD would have similar success without a lot more data to explain how the thing they measured directly connects to the thing they'll want to claim it represents.
That’s the problem. We don’t know the safety record because Tesla won’t release it.
But the anecdotal evidence we do have is very worrying. And the development model doesn’t inspire confidence.
So the calls to ban it seem very reasonable to me.
Musk boasts that Teslas have the highest crash safety ratings ever, despite this being contradicted by the testing bodies (because they don't distinguish between cars with 5 star ratings). Another bold claim, contradicted by the data!
Teslas collect tons of data while driving and when crashing, which Tesla processes. You believe that this data demonstrates that FSD is safer than regular driving but that musk is too cautious to release it?? How can you square that with Musk's behavior generally?
But we don’t know that because Tesla won’t tell us.
Nobody, even Tesla, is currently arguing that Tesla FSD is ready for driverless.
It's true that within the small geofences in which Waymo operates, their cars are dramatically less likely to come unstuck than a Tesla running FSD beta. On the other hand FSD beta drives on pretty much any public road and not a curated set of pre-driven, pre-mapped, pre-validated streets. Yes there are many geographies where it struggles; there's a cottage industry of people obsessively showing these on YouTube. There are also some areas of the country where FSD beta is utterly rock solid and people routinely drive substantial distances with zero interventions.
It's also not entirely accurate to describe Waymo cars as "fully driverless" as they have a team of human employees remotely monitoring the fleet and can remotely operate any vehicle.
This is absolutely not true. Waymo remote agents cannot operate a vehicle. All they can do is answer questions from the vehicle or plot a path to go around if it gets stuck. They cannot make any safety critical interventions. Waymo has talked about this many times.
It’s fully driverless because the vehicle is responsible for attaining minimal risk condition all on its own. This is how other L4 companies like Cruise works too.
Zoox has a good explanation on how their teleguidance works: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NKQHuutVx78
Fact is, a Waymo operator can take enough control of the vehicle to be considered in control of it. It doesn't matter if control comes in the form of a steering wheel or a joystick or drawing vectors on a map. Control is control, whether it's direct, indirect, or funnelled through a governor. Waymo operators can intervene and direct the car as needed.
Terrible analogy. You are sitting in the driver's seat with your hands on the wheel. If your car is about to hit someone, you can prevent it because you are the driver. This is what FSD is — ultimately driver is in control. No such luxury for Waymo/Cruise as their remote operators cannot do any safety critical interventions like preventing crashes.
All they can do is non-safety critical interventions by way of passing indirect commands. A Waymo is in control of itself at all times and is fully responsible for its own safety. You can play with words like "control" all you want, but this is the definition of SAE Level 4 autonomy.
If anything, calling FSD "autonomous" is highly misleading because drivers are preventing mistakes and thereby hiding its real safety outcome.
I agree, it's a terrible analogy if I was attempting to make the argument you thought I was trying to make, per your explanation for why it's a terrible analogy.
My point is that it's invalid to say that Waymo operators don't have "control" of the vehicle because it can refuse to perform some tasks. Because my car can refuse to perform some tasks too.
The deeper point is that the difference between "in control" and "not in control" isn't binary. It's all points along a continuum. If a Waymo operator controls a vehicle remotely, it's not the same level of control as a human holding the steering wheel. But it's still control in the larger sense. If the operator wants the car to stop, it will stop. Period. If they want the car to perform some action that isn't stupid or dangerous (such as colliding with a pedestrian) it will perform that action.
> If anything, calling FSD "autonomous" is highly misleading
I agree. Which is why I didn't. In most situations FSD beta can handle the "full" task of driving. By "full", they mean it's not intended to be limited to a strict subset of task, e.g. only on highways. It can "fully self drive" the car competently at least ~99.9% of the time, as evidenced by the fact that it can routinely drive most roads reliably. Drives shown on YouTube are mostly owners intentionally looking for roads which flummox it, as that's how they show improvements as software updates are released.
The challenges which preclude FSD from being a system capable of autonomy — the 0.1% of remaining error — isn't errors in spatial awareness or control surface failure. It's stuff like path planning and road sign interpretation, neither of which involve sensors that Tesla vehicles lack.
It’s a bit like stress testing two frameworks, one tested only for a day, but at the frontpage of HN, while the other was up for a months, with barely any clicks.
Look, I get that Musk isn’t popular here. But please, give me some hope for humanity and at least pretend to care about facts and evidence.
vote often, vote early
Come to Australia, the driving age here is 18. (And for your first three years as a licensed driver, you have to show plates to indicate your lack of experience because, unlike in the stupid USA, we don’t assume that passing one driving test is enough to qualify you as a “good driver”.)
I think they both have a ceiling and that the ceiling on AI is much higher.
Which is my point — the road is full of hideously bad/dangerously inexperienced human drivers holding driver licenses. Given this, it's hard for me to interpret the pearl-clutching around humans co-driving with FSD beta as anything other than confected paranoia.
Of course if every car would be self driving we wouldn’t have crazy drivers, and accidents would diminish, but so would if we simply didn’t have crazy drivers. Neither is feasible in the near future, and in the short term, humans are much better at handling tricky situations (like.. not emergency braking at the sight of a plastic bag in the air)
I wonder why there's no modified version of driving tests for AVs that each software iteration takes.
It is a perfectly valid policy to want that proof ahead of time. I’m just pointing out that this requirement would effectively kill development of this technology for the foreseeable future.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/tesla-lays-off-over-...
Don’t get me wrong, I irrationally hate the robots, used to see them all the time around Phoenix, was actively gunning for them and only had one time I could have rammed one[0] with it not being my fault. Which says a lot because it was (well, still is) a life goal to take out a robocar so I was really trying.
I used to see them doing a bunch of really stupid stuff but never anything that was outright dangerous, relatively speaking. One did stop in the fast lane when everyone was zipping by at 70+ because it couldn’t figure out how to merge into the left hand exit ramp but plenty of snow birds do that too so it’s not completely unheard of.
[0] (un)fortunately I was behind on my rent and couldn’t afford to spend who knows how long dealing with an accident investigation so the robot got to go about its day unmolested.
At least they hold liability if anything happens, though, which is an important step.
The onus is on Tesla to provide honest and accurate data, and they have shown time and time again that they are not capable of doing so.
FSD (Fools Self Driving) feature is a complete scam with dangerous and deceptive advertising putting the lives of the driver and others at risk. The Tesla vehicles themselves are not.
Isn’t it more realistic that FSD is one of those classic engineering problems where the last 10% takes 90% of the effort?
Also, the “move fast and break things” is symptomatic of the broader tech industry. Despite being glorified for decades, it’s become a toxic mentality that’s hurt us with social media, and is now exponentially more pronounced with AI. Sure, maybe Elon should be “made an example of”, but collectively we need to sober up and realize this is a systematic issue in tech rather than scapegoating one eccentric billionaire.
I'm appalled the NTSB hasn't reigned in Tesla. I'm cynical enough to start wondering what officials they've "bought off."
1) Tesla hasn't demonstrated that future hypothetical, so it's a speculative argument at best.
2) It's still unethical if they could have achieved that more safely by following industry norms and best practices, which they consistently fail to implement. Tesla could hire safety drivers for testing before public releases, but they don't. They could implement more redundancy to mitigate SPOF, but they don't. They could file the same regulatory paperwork others do (insufficient as that is), but they don't do that either. They don't even use industry standard terminology and safety concepts like ODDs.
But technically, Tesla is “fully self driving” in the sense that it can autonomously navigate, steer, etc. That doesn’t mean it won’t crash. It’s also still in Beta.
In the long run, I think FSD will become better than the majority of human drivers. Seemingly, the only way these remaining edge cases can be solved is by collecting more training data from real world driving scenarios. So the NTSB is faced with the difficult decision of allowing this Beta version to crash and even cause fatalities in the short run, betting on the prediction it will drastically improve road safety in the long run. It’s a complicated dilemma, in my opinion.
You fell for a very common misuse of statistics there. It may become better than the average human driver, but the sample for that average includes the 5-10% of drivers who cause almost all accidents. Like for other things where power laws apply using averages (or medians) on that data essentially removes any information.
FSD likely requires GAI.
The GAI requirement is an interesting theory but why? I find it dubious because, at least personally, driving seems to occur semi automatically in my motor cortex. When a car pulls out in front of me I’m not using my frontal cortex to slam on the brakes. It feels involuntary.
From a few anecdotal experiences in this thread, you would be able to tell subconsciously that that Burger King sign is not a stop sign, not even for a brief second, that floating plastic bag is not an object that one has to avoid collision with and there are just millions of edge cases humans properly handle.
Of course I might be wrong and it might not require GAI, but there is still no human construction that can even close on a human brain.
FSD monitors the driver for indicators of inattention, e.g. not looking at the road. First you get a visual alert, then a shrill alarm, and if you're still not paying attention the vehicle slows to a stop. Drivers with a history of inattention are locked out of FSD.
Contrast with traditional cruise control where you can fall asleep at the wheel going 100mph and it'll hold that speed until you crash. Of course no one wrings their hands about that.
It isn't baffling, it's completely in character. Bullshitting is standard operating procedure for Tesla. It's simply the nature of the company.
For example, Musk recently proclaimed "FSD soon!": https://insideevs.com/news/663396/elon-musk-tesla-fsd-potent...
And that's not new: https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-promises-full-self-driving-ne...
In 2016 Tesla claimed that all Tesla cars being produced "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 too: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now...
Tesla will keep lying until the lies stop working, but there do indeed appear to be suckers born every minute.
That being said, just because they have repeatedly failed to predict when “FSD” will be solved, doesn’t mean they aren’t making progress. I’ve been very happy with their latest v11 release, it’s drives so freaking smoothly on the highway.
When he does it year after year after year it's no longer "optimism", it's just bullshit and lies.
Eight years really isn’t that long when it comes to solving hard problems. Tesla has a long attention span, and personally I think that’s a virtue which significantly increases their odds of success.
I agree. But it seems Tesla and Musk don’t. Because Musk said in 2016 that autonomy is a “solved problem” and has been saying every year that they will have FSD by the end of the year.
In 2016, Uber predicted it was just a few years away.[0]
In 2012, Google predicted driverless cars for all by 2017.[1]
In 2015, BMW predicted we'd have driverless cars by 2020.[2]
In 2016, industry analysts and self driving experts predicted 2019.[3]
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-interview-on...
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2012/09/25/google_automatic_cars...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/13/self-driv...
[3] https://www.businessinsider.com/report-10-million-self-drivi...
BMW wanted press coverage that showed them as on the pulse of advanced technology. Perception influences brand associations and car purchase decisions.
Here is Tesla lying about the FSD capabilities of the cars they were putting on the road in 2016: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now...
Show me a similar lie from another car company about their production vehicles.
They had a project to use summer workers on different tasks in a “reasonably coordinated” way.
And to produce a “simple system” useful for further work.
Funny what you learn if you actually read the links you post… I know, bad form to suggest people don’t read the links they post in their astroturfing sessions.
If this was a free beta, or a $1000 option, sure. But this thing is a double-digit % of price add on to these cars. It is being aggressively marketed & sold for years while it can't actually deliver on those promises.
If it were an outlier event, sure. But his entire motive seems to be to deceive; he's pathologically disingenuous. He has not earned the benefit of the doubt.
I’d guess we are seeing this here today because someone decided it was a good day to FUD the company so they can make a buck shorting the stock.
Bottom line, Teslas are incredible cars and most people that have bad things to say about them seem to never have owned one.
FSD on highways has only been released recently. This report is as of Q4 2022. In fact, Tesla themselves say “FSD beta engaged in mostly non-highway miles” in the report.
> I’d guess we are seeing this here today because someone decided it was a good day to FUD the company so they can make a buck shorting the stock.
Ah, FUD and shorting. A classic and predictable response to anything negative about Tesla.
You can't argue about the stream of lies about capabilities and roadmap on Tesla. And everyone I know that owns one still complains about build quality, customer service and actual range. The only good thing I hear constantly is drive train.
Personally have taken my Model 3 on many long road trips and it’s great. Have the option to use our gas SUV instead but wouldn’t even consider that since it doesn’t have Autopilot/FSD
Unlikely to consider any but a Tesla when the time comes to replace our gas SUV.
I don't understand this perspective that I must own something to have a negative opinion or sentiment about something. Are we supposed to purchase cars starting at $40,000 just so we are allowed to critique them? Does it not make sense that someone hasn't purchased such a vehicle and has a negative opinion on it because they have done their research and discovered the negatives?
Also the heated steering wheel is like a binary switch, the vinyl is cheap and slippery (really noticeable on the steering wheel), road noise is loud, seats are just meh, phone-based access sometimes spotty, have to reboot once a week because music streaming hangs, and the headlights are an older matrix technology that has a mediocre pattern without even supporting the actual intended functionality of a matrix headlight.
But those are relatively minor in the grand scheme. Lots of cars have little annoyances like that. On balance I'm satisfied with the purchase, but I think it's unlikely that I'll buy another if there's an alternative. My next EV won't be a compromise, it'll have the performance -and- a nice interior with good seats.
[1] https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/ear-pain-pressure-he...
My comment wasn’t so much about this particular author as it was a comment on the general motivations of people who write on the Forbes contributor platform.
In this case the author bills themselves as a consultant on self driving cars so given the venue of publication one has to wonder whether they were paid to write this. Writing under the Forbes contributor by line is an extremely questionable choice in any case.
Then it might make sense for him to declare how much he gets from the patent licenses or if Tesla itself licenses any of the patents, because those are possible conflicts of interest.
But the FSD stuff is borderline scam. EAP itself barely improved in my 4 years of ownership, and the sporadic phantom braking incidents could make it unusable on some software versions/roads/conditions/days/random.
To anyone about to reply that cruise control never phantom brakes for them, it will. Just keep using it.
It does not make predictable errors (slow response for older driver / aggressive driving by young male driver / etc). It's a lot of random error no healthy human would make.
It's not even consistent on routes.. you might find it to be a huge relief to use on your commute and then one day it almost kills you on its 47th route on this road.
It used to lose its mind on HOV lane mergers while driving in HOV lane like 1 out of 3 times.
It used to hard brake for a Burger King roadside sign 20 feet in the air because perceptually its vision system read this as a stop sign.
It used to slam the brakes and cut the speed 30mph because it suddenly thought it was on the local road under the highway I was driving.
It used to phantom brake for highway overpass shadows in high midday sun. They slowly fixed that, but then introduced some imperceptible conditions that still triggered phantom braking in other lighting.
It allegedly avoids objects, and would brake overly hard for someone merging in front multiple car lengths away. Meanwhile very close cut-ins would often get missed, and I had 3 particularly hair raising incidents over the life of the car in which I was cutoff at highway speed and the car just.. did nothing. I had to brake so hard the car lost all traction.
I have to think these people are just fans with deliberate blinders. It doesn't take much time at all to get a phantom braking incident. You can minimize by only using TACC in light traffic with a lead car, but there will still be moments it sees something that looks too much like a car coming at you and it'll stab the brakes. In my experience, it happens probably every 100-200 miles of freeway driving. I'm getting pretty good at predicting in advance what scene in front of the car is likely to freak out the car. And I drive with my foot resting on the accelerator ready to counteract the braking as quickly as possible.
I'd really like the option to disable TACC and have a regular cruise control. We know the software supports that, because non-AP cars have it. Just make it available to all of us.
Further - I think it promotes bad tradeoffs that reduce safety.
Like you, I sometimes ended up cruising with my foot over the accelerator to protect from being rear ended due to PB.
This is exactly the opposite of driver instruction and what is logically safer. If we had to choose where to rest a foot in anticipation, the brake is the better place to be.
The author owns a Tesla and likes it a lot.
Not sure why I'm saying this, I'd tell GP to check his bias, but he'll probably conclude, "Nah, I'm clever enough to be objective about this!"... we all think we're clever enough, and try to protect that idea in our heads.
You've not really engaged with that and have instead
- speculated that the author is spreading FUD because they're short Tesla
- decided that the report is wrong because it was written on a Forbes platform you say is for crypto scams
- elsewhere used anecdata to refute it - "I own one myself and know several people who have gotten one more recently and they all love them and have had zero issues"
With all due respect ... this is fanboi behaviour.
“It’s also true that drivers are more likely to engage Autopilot in easy driving conditions — clear roads with no construction and nice weather.”
Is it? That doesn’t jive with my personal experience and how I use it.
He also claims that if users don’t intervene FSD will surely crash. This also strikes me as not really true most take overs in my experience are because the car is being overlying cautious or annoying in some way that isn’t dangerous.
He claims that people that buy Teslas are old and wealthy which skews the data since they are naturally safer drivers but doesn’t cite any source showing that is true. Teslas cost about the average of a new US vehicle. Another thing that was maybe true 5-10 years ago but no longer.
If he had wanted to write a neutral point of view article about how he would like to see the self driving industry report safely stats that would be worthwhile but this just seems to be ragging on what one company is doing when everyone else doesn’t report this stuff at all and there isn’t an acceptable industry standard yet. Like do we have statistics from GM’s Cruise self driving unit, or Google Waymo?
My comments about the car being great were more directed at the others in this thread ragging them.
Ugh, completely wrong. Have you heard of CA DMV disengagement/crash reports? Waymo and Cruise provide detailed reports of incidents to regulatory authorities. In fact, Waymo goes out of its way to publish detailed safety data about their operations: https://waymo.com/safety/
https://storage.googleapis.com/waymo-uploads/files/documents...
https://storage.googleapis.com/sdc-prod/v1/safety-report/Way...
CA DMV releases annual mileage reports where you can compute disengagement per mile and accidents per mile. The companies file those reports with the DMV (guess the one company that doesn't do it). Look it up, it's public. And guess who analyses those reports every year? The author you're attacking in this thread.
Adaptive cruise control, as it should really be called, works with other manufacturers for years now. Tesla is FUD-ing themselves with false advertising as well as people buying into it
I get that the reality distortion field is strong with Musk, but this is especially silly. People generally try to avoid buying products that they think are bad.
Also it's not like Teslas are some exclusive product these days. Most people in tech probably know at least one person with one.
For me personally, experiencing Tesla's self driving made me even less interested in owning one.
That's a name I had not heard for a very long time.
So many words for nothing we don't already know about.
Also a bit ironic that the picture the author chose for highlighting FSD crashes didn't happen on a freeway.
The robotaxi claims are as empty as finding life on the moon as they are no where to be seen and Tesla still increasing the price of this snake oil feature to unsophisticated customers as a Level 5 FSD autonomous system.
This system is begging to be investigated by the regulators urgently.
Of course, it may be that the LLM architecture makes them susceptible for this, but not self-driving AI. But the question still remains, do we understand enough about it to trust human lives to the AI?
Do other manufacturers provide the granular data being requested here? This feels like someone looking for a reason to single Tesla out, for obvious reasons: Tesla headlines get clicks.
Jeeze is this so hard to understand?
I live in pac heights where waze and others are fully driverless now and I am less scared of them than a Tesla with a driver in it today.
* It's perfectly safe, there's a human in charge
* Any crazy stuff the human prevents it from doing, the human intervened too early so we don't really know that the car was going to follow through on the crazy thing
It's too "uncanny valley" of how much rope you are supposed to give FSD.
All crashes are the humans fault.
The low number of crashes is purely FSD and has nothing to do with the driver heroics of preventing it from doing a dozen stupid things per drive.
(Also, I don't believe Waze is operating self driving vehicles, but I am charitably understanding that you likely mean Waymo & Cruise.)
This is all so tiresome at this point.
So.. an article from 2020 references the quarterly safety report for Q4/2022?
You might want to check your dates.