1: Did you actually read the full article?
Yes I read the article. Let me explain my "talking points" claim.
First we have the title of the article, "Tesla has a self-driving strategy that other companies abandoned years ago". So right off the bat we know the article is going to be about how Tesla's self-driving strategy won't work because other companies have already dismissed it. The exact same thing we hear in this thread constantly by folks who say that Tesla is not a legit SDC and other companies like Waymo are the only SDC that are legit when it comes to developing FSD.
Then when we go to the very first line of the article which reads "An overhaul to
Tesla's Autopilot webpage might represent the clearest acknowledgment yet that the company has failed to deliver on Elon Musk's ambitious vision for a self-driving future."
Where I have heard this idea before? Yep, on this very page by folks who say that the new description of FSD is proof that Tesla has dumbed down FSD and is admitting that FSD won't happen.
Then this line, "In other words, despite Musk's bluster over the years, Autopilot is still just a driver-assistance system. And it will continue to be just a driver-assistance system for some time to come."
Again, word for word for the critics say, that Musk is just blustering nonsense and Tesla's FSD is just a driver assist that will always be a driver assist for years.
Then this line, "But there's reason to doubt that this strategy is going to work. More importantly, there's reason to worry that it could get people killed."
Again, the same thing we hear on this thread, that Tesla's FSD strategy won't work and will even get people killed because of how bad and foolish it is.
Then the article criticizes Tesla for "moving the goal posts". Where have I heard that before? Yep, right here.
Lastly, it explains why FSD requires LIDAR. Again, all the same things we hear people on this thread say all the time.
To sum up we got:
"Tesla is not a legit SDC"
"Tesla's FSD approach has been repudiated by the real experts."
"Tesla's FSD will always just be a L2 ADAS that Tesla will pretend is FSD to make money"
"Tesla will get people killed"
"FSD requires LIDAR which Tesla does not use therefore Tesla is doomed to fail."
I think you get the idea. It's the same old stuff we hear repeated on this thread over and over again.
2: What part of it do you take issue with?
I take issue with the bias of the article. It reads like a hit piece on Tesla. It mentions nothing positive about Tesla. It does not mention how good EAP is. It does not mention that Tesla has FSD in development mode now. It just regurgitates the arguments against Tesla. And, it uses sensationalism journalism, claiming that Tesla will get people killed but it can't even get the facts right about the fatal accidents. It has to issue an addendum at the bottom with a correction.
I also disagree with the article that Tesla's method is flawed. When you have hundreds of thousands of drivers like Tesla has, an incremental approach with driver supervision makes sense. There are millions of driving situations that tesla drivers face every day on a multitude of difference roads. There is no way, even the best of software development, could anticipate all of it. So even if Tesla did have L4, they would still need to release it with driver supervision at first. Waymo can take their approach because they just need to L4 to work in limited geofenced situations with a limited number of cars.
But the bottom line is that I take issue with the idea that Tesla won't achieve FSD. Tesla is nearing "feature complete" FSD that works in development mode. And Tesla is improving the hardware with AP3. Tesla is close to "FSD with driver supervision". Of course, that is a long way to L4. I am not naive on this. Driver supervision will be required at first but Tesla will continue to improve it until it does get to L4. Again, we can whine that Tesla is not at L4 yet like Musk promised years ago but I think Tesla is in a good place now in their FSD development.
And the idea that Tesla will release a FSD that will kill people is sensationalism. Heck, the reason that Tesla has delayed releasing some features is precisely because they are not going to release features that could be unsafe. For example, Tesla released NOA with driver confirmation for that very reason. I have no doubt that when Tesla does release FSD that will be safe and the driver confirmation will just be a safety precaution.
Look I do want Tesla to succeed, I own 2 Teslas, have owned 3, and we plan on purchasing a Roadster for my wife when available. My only problem with Tesla is the “CET” Chief Executive Tweeter making promises no one keeps. Making commitments no one keeps. AND now moving the definition of FSD all around so that Elon/Tesla can announce with trumpet and fanfare that “We Have FSD”....”we have fulfilled our commitment”......This is not okay..
I am glad to hear that you want Tesla to succeed. And yes, I do agree with you that Musk should be a more responsible with his promises and tweets. But I have to disagree a bit that Tesla is redefining FSD just so that they can pretend like they are keeping their promises. The FSD on the website will be feature complete and will able to self-drive on city streets with enough confidence to release to the public. So Tesla is not releasing half-FSD and calling it a day. Tesla is just planning to release FSD with driver supervision as a precaution and as an intermediary step on the path to L4. It is not Tesla's final FSD. As you well know, being a long time Tesla owner, Tesla uses OTA updates to gradually improve their products. Tesla will surely improve FSD over many years to come.
