Interesting that the first prediction is likely one of the most reasonable. It seems plausible (to me) that in around 200% of the estimated time, the prediction could be true.
If you believe that IL law post, this would be the appropriate jurisdiction to argue in SCC. Could it be the analysis you quote might be a bit, um, over the top?
... the type of discrimination that I am referring to is Tesla's arbitrary denial of a service to customers who have already paid-in-full for FSD.
The quote implies more than actually happened though. Tesla never claimed they had a finished product.
The nearest you get was them promising level 2 city streets driving....
It comes from the thread:Which thread is that quote from? I'd like to peruse as many of these FSD - or, rather, lack of FSD discussions as possible.
But not Small Claims Court, almost half of which have dollar controversy amounts in the range of what FSD costs. In fact, IL has a $10,000 SCC limit.For this promise to be fulfilled it needs to happen while I still own my car. They still have time, but somebody who has been waiting for six years while their car ages out has a very real grounds for complaint. The post above about Illinois law sounds to me like it would apply. Why hasn't anybody brought a lawsuit? Maybe because lawsuits are obscenely expensive and multi-billion-dollar companies have full-time lawyers.
Although Tesla never claimed to have a finished product, they implied a time frame when they said (as they said to me and anyone else who bought their car during a several-years timespan) "Your car [not A car, not Tesla cars but specifically your car] will be able to drive the kids around, drive coast-to-coast by itself, or operate as a robotaxi." Tesla and Elon effectively promised that if I paid for FSD my car would be Level 5. For this promise to be fulfilled it needs to happen while I still own my car. They still have time, but somebody who has been waiting for six years while their car ages out has a very real grounds for complaint.
The post above about Illinois law sounds to me like it would apply. Why hasn't anybody brought a lawsuit? Maybe because lawsuits are obscenely expensive and multi-billion-dollar companies have full-time lawyers.
You keep claiming that Tesla never promised more than Level 2, which is patently and demonstrably false
because they were promising what amounted to level 5 autonomy until they quietly backtracked, without any tacit acknowledgement or offer of restitution to buyers who paid before the promise changed.
FSD is coming like...
The second coming of Jesus.
Trump's return to the presidency this month.
Big Foot is real and just hasn't been found yet.
Sign at bar entrance "free beer tomorrow".
The timeline is laughable so it deserves punishment. I believe it will eventually be satisfying but not for a very long time.
Because tweets such as this are unconscionable:Why?
Because tweets such as this are unconscionable:
(a bit like promising Model S ”starts deliveries next month“, only to be drip released 5 months later)
No, his tweet was highly misleading.
‘Regulatory approval’ is an obvious, fallacious red herring
Regulatory approval is not holding up a Tesla robotaxi. Tesla is holding it up, with their FSD being in infancy. Hence, ‘regulatory approval’ is a fallacious red herringYou repeating a clearly inaccurate claim doesn't make it less inaccurate.
What he said was true.
For RTs? No- it's not.
There's a few US states you could deploy a consumer self-driving system without significant regulatory hurdles right now... (in most states you could not though- and nowhere overseas I'm aware of)
Widespread commercial self driving deployment would absolutely have regulatory issues to varying degrees nearly everywhere.
Regulatory approval is not holding up a Tesla robotaxi. Tesla is holding it up, with their FSD being in infancy. Hence, ‘regulatory approval’ is a fallacious red herring
Elon Musk said:I’ve gone through this timeline before several times, but it is often misconstrued that there’s three major levels to autonomy. There’s the car being able to be autonomous, but requiring supervision and intervention at times. That’s feature complete
"And then, there's another level which is that we think it's -- that from a Tesla standpoint, we think the car is safe enough to be driven without supervision.
Then the third level would be that regulators are also convinced that the car can be driven autonomously without supervision. Those are three different levels."
But his tweet was accurate.
FSDBeta, showing functionality, was released before end of the year to a limited testing group.
We're now in the "software validation" phase mentioned during the purchase process- the software exists but is not reliable/safe enough for wide deployment or higher operating levels.
I think Knightshade is essentially suggesting this was perhaps a top-tier non-answer addressing the two bookends of the process but ignoring the meat and potatoes, which would be getting this system to the point where approval for fully autonomous deployment is even an issue facing regulators.
No, Elon's tweet was highly misleading because he said "...regulatory approval is the big unknown."
The actual big unknown is When will FSD be good enough to dispense with human supervision?
Also because when he said "Functionality is looking good for this year" he means that in his hyper-optimistic view the software will have all the components (i.e., "feature complete") but anybody not familiar with Elon-speak would assume that "functionality" means that it can actually do the job it was intended for: Unsupervised driving.
Someone asked him when- so he said when he expected the FIRST part to be done (and he was right BTW
Then he mentioned what the LAST part will be once they get to it, and that he couldn't predict a date for THAT part to be completed.
Not sure how ME got so confused over it.
What's extra funny is this thread began with people being mad when Elon DOES try and be more definitively predictive over exact deadlines.... and now they're mad he did NOT provide one for the later steps.
(double funny given he HIT the one early step one he DID include)
They just wanna be mad at Elon either way seems to be the message.
That's true though
Because Tesla has no actual control over that piece.
So they literally can't know.
Ah, but Tesla DOES have some control over that bit.
Not as much as they'd like I suppose, but some
Tesla has no idea whatsoever when they will "solve" FSD to the degree that human supervision is no longer needed. They are working furiously on it, but when or even if they will succeed is entirely unknown.
Regulatory approval, OTOH, is a foregone conclusion: It will be approved as soon as it can demonstrate safety.
Please. Releasing a limited Beta to hand-selected volunteer testers is not "released"
But Autopilot on City Streets has not been "released."