FSD Timeline Promises (summary)

[daniel]

What about this one?
"the basic news is that all Tesla vehicles exiting the factory have the hardware necessary for level 5 autonomy so that in terms of the connector cameras and compute power it's every call we make, on the order of two thousand cars a week, are shipping now with Level 5 meaning hardware capable of a full self-driving or driverless capability so it will take us some time you know in the future to complete validation of the software and also get through required regulatory approval but the important thing is that the foundation is laid for the cars to be fully autonomous at a safety level we believe to be at least twice that of a person may be better so I think that's probably unexpected by most that it's happening right now"

Note that in the above quote he very clearly says that the only remaining hurdle is validation of the software. That, to me, says that the software exists and just needs to be verified and approved. But in fact that software does not exist. It is very far from being able to operate without a driver. The above is a clear misrepresentation of the state of the system.

EAP is a finished product BTW, and has been since 2019. Buyers got everything they paid for in full.

EAP seems to be "finished" in the sense that they seem to have finished working on it, but I've never gotten auto-park to work, and though I've never tried summon, I've read here on TMC that it's pretty crummy. Which is why I haven't tried it.

These things don't bother me because I don't need either of them. EAP does everything I want it to do, which is lane-keeping and speed control on the highway, and speed control on some other occasions. But no, it has not delivered what was promised.

 

[Knightshade]

"it will take us some time into the future to complete validation of the software"

The future is longer than anticipated. Which is not unusual for Elon.

 

[Knightshade]

Note that in the above quote he very clearly says that the only remaining hurdle is validation of the software. That, to me, says that the software exists and just needs to be verified and approved. But in fact that software does not exist. It is very far from being able to operate without a driver. The above is a clear misrepresentation of the state of the system.

Nope.

They had an approach they thought would work THEN. Validation showed it did not, so they went back to the drawing board.

They've done this several times now- and believe the current system is the one that'll work out. They might be right this time- or they might not.

 

[idriveacar]

Nope.

They had an approach they thought would work THEN. Validation showed it did not, so they went back to the drawing board.

They've done this several times now- and believe the current system is the one that'll work out. They might be right this time- or they might not.

Except they didn't say "we think it has ..." they said "it does have ...". And they didn't say "contingent on validation" they said "pending validation". Very clearly negating your theory.

 

[Knightshade]

Except they didn't say "we think it has ..." they said "it does have ...".

Yes- based on their belief about what their software stack would need, it had it.

Turned out that SW stack was inadequate to the task, and they eventually moved to a version that required more HW.

Thus they gave free computer upgrades to all FSD buyers to keep that promise that your car would have all HW needed for FSD.

And they didn't say "contingent on validation" they said "pending validation". Very clearly negating your theory.

pend·ing
/ˈpendiNG/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
awaiting decision or settlement.


The decision was the SW wasn't able to do the job. It failed validation.

So they had to rewrite the software.


So no, it very clearly does not negate my theory. Which isn't a theory, it's the literal meaning of the words they used.

 

[rxlawdude]

What about this one?
"the basic news is that all Tesla vehicles exiting the factory have the hardware necessary for level 5 autonomy so that in terms of the connector cameras and compute power it's every call we make, on the order of two thousand cars a week, are shipping now with Level 5 meaning hardware capable of a full self-driving or driverless capability so it will take us some time you know in the future to complete validation of the software and also get through required regulatory approval but the important thing is that the foundation is laid for the cars to be fully autonomous at a safety level we believe to be at least twice that of a person may be better so I think that's probably unexpected by most that it's happening right now"

Ignore all the text beyond what you bolded.

Presenting incomplete facts is the linchpin of those with no argument.

 

[rxlawdude]

Except they didn't say "we think it has ..." they said "it does have ...". And they didn't say "contingent on validation" they said "pending validation". Very clearly negating your theory.

You gonna debate pending vs contingent???

Popcorn time!

 

[Daniel in SD]

Ignore all the text beyond what you bolded.

Presenting incomplete facts is the linchpin of those with no argument.

I was responding to the claim that Tesla never claimed Level 5 capability.
Clearly they can just keep validating the software forever. It seems like it might get a bit dicey if they stop validating the software (which I suspect they have for MCU1 cars). Of course they would argue that they plan to start validating the software again in the future. It’s really quite ingenious.

 

[AndreP]

Tesla was very clearly selling the perception of Level 5 autonomy back in 2016

Tesla Self-Driving Demonstration | Tesla

www.tesla.com

A "Self-Driving Demonstration" video that begins with a big ol' disclaimer

"THE PERSON IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT IS ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS.

HE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING, THE CAR IS DRIVING ITSELF"

No hands on the wheel, eye tracking technology not implemented at that time. Now a full five years later you need to jump through Safety Score hoops just to be admitted to the beta for the software where you're being told the vehicle could do the wrong thing at the worst time and you'll be cut off for not paying appropriate attention.

 

[EVNow]

What about this one?
"the basic news is that all Tesla vehicles exiting the factory have the hardware necessary for level 5 autonomy

Not talking about h/w.

Besides, my post was about that "fact" that OP stated - that was clearly not a "fact" but one of several interpretations that are possible.

As I said, that has been debated to death. You can see the thread I linked to. Its like Deja Vu, all over again

ps : Materially, there is no difference between saying L5 and what he has claimed in the past, that I posted upthread. So, this debate itself is really moot.

 

[DarkandStormy]

Like this one ...

Question: "Just so that we understand the definitions, when you refer to 'feature complete self-driving,' it sounds like you're talking level 5, no geofence. Is that's what's expected by the end of the year?"

Elon: "Yes."

You're just wrong. Give it up.

 

[Knightshade]

Question: "Just so that we understand the definitions, when you refer to 'feature complete self-driving,' it sounds like you're talking level 5, no geofence. Is that's what's expected by the end of the year?"

Elon: "Yes."

"expect" != promise.

I wake up every morning EXPECTING not to have to correct dumb people on the internet.

And every night I end up disappointed in that expectation.

 

[EVNow]

You're just wrong. Give it up.

Do you know how to read ? There are 3 parts to the question. Which one/s did he answer as yes ?

Whatever you or I may say - its purely an interpretation. There is no definitive "fact" here.

it sounds like you're talking level 5, no geofence. Is that's what's expected by the end of the year?"​

​

Elon: "Yes."​

 

[DarkandStormy]

"expect" != promise.

I wake up every morning EXPECTING not to have to correct dumb people on the internet.

And every night I end up disappointed in that expectation.

Do you know how to read ? There are 3 parts to the question. Which one/s did he answer as yes ?

Whatever you or I may say - its purely an interpretation. There is no definitive "fact" here.

it sounds like you're talking level 5, no geofence. Is that's what's expected by the end of the year?"​

​

Elon: "Yes."​

It's so funny to watch people do mental gymnastics to convince themselves Elon wasn't talking about level 5 autonomy.

I think his answer speaks for itself. No real reason to take this any further.

 

[EVNow]

It's so funny to watch people do mental gymnastics to convince themselves Elon wasn't talking about level 5 autonomy.

It's so funny to watch people do mental gymnastics to convince themselves Elon was talking about level 5 autonomy

I think his answer speaks for itself. No real reason to take this any further.

Good to see you give up on this.

 

[Knightshade]

It's so funny to watch people do mental gymnastics to convince themselves Elon wasn't talking about level 5 autonomy.

FWIW I didn't remark on the L5 of it at all.

I pointed out "I expect X to happen by this date" is not the same thing- literally and legally- as "I promise we will deliver X by this date"

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Do you know how to read ? There are 3 parts to the question. Which one/s did he answer as yes ?

Whatever you or I may say - its purely an interpretation. There is no definitive "fact" here.

it sounds like you're talking level 5, no geofence. Is that's what's expected by the end of the year?"​

​

Elon: "Yes."​

C'mon. In any reasonable world that answer means that Elon expects level 5 no geofence by the end of the year. (No, it was not a promise.) Regardless of the context prior to the question, it's a specific enough question that if he didn't mean to address level 5 capability, he definitely should have said something to clear that up in his response, rather than just saying yes!

To be clear, I'm not saying Elon meant that he expected level 5 when he responded (there's no way for anyone to say what he meant). But it was his duty to indicate that he was not suggesting that. And the perfectly reasonable (and correct) interpretation was that he was saying L5 was expected. It can be the correct interpretation, even if it's not what Elon meant. Elon's not allowed to just say things that are different than what he is thinking and then claim that you misinterpreted because he was thinking something else. That would be absurd. Misinterpretation applies to statements which are unclear & ambiguous, which this one was not.

Fortunately, it doesn't really matter for this thread, since he didn't promise anything in that particular quote, anyway.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Not talking about h/w.

Hmm… Hadn’t thought of this interpretation. It’s even more ingenious than I thought.
I assumed they were validating L5 capable software to run on the L5 capable hardware.

 

[rxlawdude]

I was responding to the claim that Tesla never claimed Level 5 capability.
Clearly they can just keep validating the software forever. It seems like it might get a bit dicey if they stop validating the software (which I suspect they have for MCU1 cars). Of course they would argue that they plan to start validating the software again in the future. It’s really quite ingenious.

You can't make an assertion based on withholding substantive facts.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

You can't make an assertion based on withholding substantive facts.

I've lost the thread, which facts were withheld in the above quote under discussion?