Elon: FSD Beta tweets

[DarkForest]

Look at the crowd sourced disengagement rates for freeways showing 1 in about 100 miles. Human level is probably 1 accident in 100,000 miles for freeways.

Though, they are not directly comparable - you get the idea.

I suspect that if every beta tester used the beta without supervision, within maybe three months, every single one of our cars would be in an accident. So I’m definitely not defending the beta here. But…

I wouldn’t be able to prove that the beta is dangerous sufficiently enough for a jury. I wouldn’t be able to prove anything, really. Whereas I expect that Tesla’s “hardcore litigation department” would be able to sway a jury into believing it’s sufficiently safer than a human. That’s my point.

 

[DarkForest]

Except L5 is already legal right now in half a dozen US states.

There's no "but regulators" excuse that actually exists there.

I don't think that's what Tesla wants to do, though. They don't want to deliver L5 FSD to consumers because I don't think they want to take on the liability of what L5 requires. They want to deliver something good enough to be L5 without the liability part.

So what they'll say is, "It's basically good enough for L5, but the regulators won't let us call it that."

If they were being honest, they would say, "We think it's good enough for L5, but we're not willing to put our money where our mouth is. The regulators require us to be liable for accidents to be able to advertise it as L5, so technically we can't say it's L5 because it's not actually L5. But we still want your money, so we're going to say it's 'practically L5', at least the parts of L5 that we like. We think it's great, but there's no warranty. It's , but we take no responsibility. It works perfectly, but don't quote us on that."

Of course, this is all a ton of assumptions, and I will be happy to be wrong. Also, they might just hide behind the "beta" label forever.

 

[Knightshade]

I don't think that's what Tesla wants to do, though. They don't want to deliver L5 FSD to consumers because I don't think they want to take on the liability of what L5 requires. They want to deliver something good enough to be L5 without the liability part.

So what they'll say is, "It's basically good enough for L5, but the regulators won't let us call it that."

Except that's factually untrue- and such a claim would not stand up in a court of law.

 

[DarkForest]

Except that's factually untrue- and such a claim would not stand up in a court of law.

I guess I’m pessimistic about the truth standing up in a court of law.

 

[2101Guy]

I don't think that's what Tesla wants to do, though. They don't want to deliver L5 FSD to consumers because I don't think they want to take on the liability of what L5 requires.

“Elon Musk says Tesla's Full Self-Driving tech will have Level 5 autonomy by the end of 2021”​

 

[willow_hiller]

“Elon Musk says Tesla's Full Self-Driving tech will have Level 5 autonomy by the end of 2021”​

You really love this out of context headline, don't you?

 

[nvx1977]

I don't think that's what Tesla wants to do, though. They don't want to deliver L5 FSD to consumers because I don't think they want to take on the liability of what L5 requires. They want to deliver something good enough to be L5 without the liability part.

So what they'll say is, "It's basically good enough for L5, but the regulators won't let us call it that."

If they were being honest, they would say, "We think it's good enough for L5, but we're not willing to put our money where our mouth is. The regulators require us to be liable for accidents to be able to advertise it as L5, so technically we can't say it's L5 because it's not actually L5. But we still want your money, so we're going to say it's 'practically L5', at least the parts of L5 that we like. We think it's great, but there's no warranty. It's , but we take no responsibility. It works perfectly, but don't quote us on that."

Of course, this is all a ton of assumptions, and I will be happy to be wrong. Also, they might just hide behind the "beta" label forever.

Tesla would start their own robotaxi fleet and therefore take responsibility for their cars' actions. And if you as a Tesla owner wanted to join that fleet for some money-making, you'd have to have Tesla Insurance, and Tesla may still take a cut of the profit (like Google does with YT). Really doesn't matter what SAE level the car is performing at, as long as it makes business sense and is safer than human driving.

Elon said this was the plan for 2020 - whenever he said there would be millions of robotaxis on the road. I'd imagine this is still the plan, just way further out.

 

[EVNow]

I suspect that if every beta tester used the beta without supervision, within maybe three months, every single one of our cars would be in an accident. So I’m definitely not defending the beta here. But…

I wouldn’t be able to prove that the beta is dangerous sufficiently enough for a jury. I wouldn’t be able to prove anything, really. Whereas I expect that Tesla’s “hardcore litigation department” would be able to sway a jury into believing it’s sufficiently safer than a human. That’s my point.

Then we are talking about different things. I’m saying that’s the reason Tesla won’t take liability and offer L3.

 

[DanCar]

You really love this out of context headline, don't you?

What is the context?

 

[willow_hiller]

What is the context?

It's a headline of an article that doesn't even bother to quote Elon either, but I dug out the article and the transcript of the quarterly earnings call that they reference here: Will Tesla sue Dan O'Dowd?

Long story short, when Elon is asked about level 5, he often answers in terms of it having all the features needed, but not performing without faults.

 

[2101Guy]

Tesla would start their own robotaxi fleet

 

[DarkForest]

Then we are talking about different things. I’m saying that’s the reason Tesla won’t take liability and offer L3.

I feel like maybe we’re on the same page but reading different paragraphs.

 

[2101Guy]

he said there would be millions of robotaxis on the road.

 

[kabin]

It's impressive how Elon stuck to his guns with the price increase. We'll see if they finally have a handle on it.

 

[DarkForest]

“Elon Musk says Tesla's Full Self-Driving tech will have Level 5 autonomy by the end of 2021”​

Aside from the fact that it didn’t happen and that what someone says they’ll do doesn’t necessarily mean that’s what they want to do….

That fits with my conspiracy theory. They want us to look at it as Level 5 autonomy and forget about them not wanting to be liable for any accidents caused by FSD. My other points still apply, but it would just be a copy/paste of what I’ve already said.

 

[momo3605]

they'll eventually be compelled to address the folks they sold FSD to prior to ~march 2019- to whom they explicitly sold a system that is at minimum L4.

When is eventually? I don’t see any timeline for this. I wouldn’t hold your breath for L4 out of FSD Capabilties package. People have been threatening to sue for years, and I’ve seen squat. I don’t think there’s enough people in this pre-2019 camp left for Tesla to care. FSD will remain L2 unless there is significant competition or pressure to move to some very limited L3. L4 is out of the question with the current hardware imo

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

BTW- first drive on 10.69.1.1-- was worse than 10.12 on the two spots I noticed any difference at all... maybe .2 will fix.

Yeah it is pretty much the SSDD.

It is better in some areas, and worse in others. Haha on .2 fixing it; check in in another year. This stuff is tricky and takes time! We definitely cannot expect anything significant from .2. (Remember, Elon said the practical effect of the changes "will be significant." That's how we know.)

 

[Knightshade]

When is eventually? I don’t see any timeline for this.

Avg length of new vehicle ownership in the US is ~8.4 years.

I've said (for years) I think that's the earliest you'd get any traction on a failure to deliver lawsuit regarding FSD, and we're not quite there yet- but you did ask when eventually is so that's my rough guess.

I wouldn’t hold your breath for L4 out of FSD Capabilties package. People have been threatening to sue for years, and I’ve seen squat. I don’t think there’s enough people in this pre-2019 camp left for Tesla to care. FSD will remain L2 unless there is significant competition or pressure to move to some very limited L3. L4 is out of the question with the current hardware imo

FWIW I agree on the current HW. There's every reason to think they can upgrade existing cars to HW4 and newer cameras though assuming they keep the same # of cameras (if not it gets significantly harder)

Wouldn't be the first time they did either for FSD owners.

Personally I think the easy "fix" is they will eventually just refund the ~$3000 paid for pre-march-2019 FSD buyers, since those are the only ones promised during the sale to get at least L4.... and I really don't believe they want a lawsuit that would gain subpoena access to internal emails on what they realistically thought about FSD timelines and progress getting on the record.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

You think Tesla or your insurance company will assume liability for FSD ? Think again. You are on your own.

For some Tesla is their insurance company, and as FSD evolves more and more people will have Tesla insurance. So it remains to be seen how Tesla will leverage that.

I don't feel as if Tesla is going to be a market leader (globally) when it comes to L3/L4, and instead they're going to be a less restricted L2 drivers aid. The capabilities of which will vary depending on regulations of the region its operated in. Like Europe will typically be more locked down for functionality allowed under L2.

Hopefully the US straightens out the liability problem in the US before we get too far behind other countries. We're already technically behind Germany with L3.

The problem Tesla is going to have is lack of income coming in to support the FSD program. FSD is priced too high for its current functionality whether its the one time amount or the subscription amount. So all the FSD efforts will have to be paid through revenue for the cars themselves.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Hopefully the US straightens out the liability problem in the US before we get too far behind other countries. We're already technically behind Germany with L3.

Isn't the manufacturer liable for at-fault collisions in Germany?
It seems like the issue is getting separate approval from all the states that require it in the US. That's why Mercedes has only announced that they will release Drive Pilot in California.