Blog Musk Says FSD Beta is ‘Not Great’

Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk said its latest beta version of its Full Self Driving software is “not great.”

Musk was replying to a video praising the new self-driving software. Musk said Tesla employees have urgency to improve the system.

“FSD Beta 9.2 is actually not great imo, but Autopilot/AI team is rallying to improve as fast as possible,” he tweeted. “We’re trying to have a single stack for both highway & city streets, but it requires massive NN retraining.”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1429903213726093315

Tesla sells FSD for $10,000 or a $199 per month subscription. The beta version of the FSD software has only been rolled out to small number of owners and employees to test the software.

Musk’s admission on Monday follows an announcement last week that the National Transportation Safety Board has launched a formal investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot system, saying Tesla vehicles using Autopilot have caused 11 crashes with first responder vehicles in the U.S.

Tesla also hosted its AI Day last week where it touted a chip designed specifically for training artificial intelligence to identify a variety of obstacles. But, it seems there remains work to be done for Tesla to meet its full-self-driving promise.

 

[hooty]

Legally, a CEO saying "We hope to do X in the future" isn't selling anything but a hope.
Quote from the event you mention
That's clearly a forward looking statement, something they hope to achieve in the future- not something they have, or are selling, today.

Which might get buyers to look, but isn't legally binding in contract terms.

Do you have any case law precedent to support this 'firmly worded statement'?

 

[Knightshade]

I thought you argued they didn’t sell autonomy?

Then you haven't been reading my posts very closely.

For example:

They promised L4 to buyers prior to ~March 2019-- and they'll have legal concerns with those buyers eventually when they admit they can't do it on the cars they sold them

I've been crystal clear on which group they promised (L4) autonomy to, and which ones they only promised L2.

First & foremost the promotion of the 'Tesla Network' was on the website circa 2016/17. There was no indication that it was going to be geofenced. On balance that implies L5 more than L4.

Nonsense. No details were given at all other than the name of the service. In fact- they specifically said more details about it would come LATER. Which could certainly include geofencing--- but apart from that, there's a slew of ways a car can be L4 instead of L5 without requiring geofencing.

Making repeated statements at conferences/presentations are not what I define as 'off-hand'

It's also not what I (or a court) define as a contract.

A contract requries a meeting of the minds- and it requires 2 parties to communicate and agree on terms.

Tesla does this during the purchase of FSD.

Where, since 3/19, they've been clear they're selling you an L2 product.... and between ~10/16 and 3/19 were selling you a product that was at least L4, though as I said from the start you CAN make a weak argument for L5, just not one I expect you could win in court compared to the L4 one that is a slam dunk.

Elon just making random statements at conferences and during interviews about FUTURE functionality they THINK OR HOPE they will have someday, probably, is not a contract.

Tesla (TSLA): Elon Musk says 'very close' to level 5 autonomy complete

Literally in the headline it's Elon talking about a future thing that does not yet exist... "very close"

Musk turns on Tesla’s latest Full Self-Driving beta, says it’s “actually not great”

It’s unclear if CEO still thinks company can achieve Level 5 by year’s end.

arstechnica.com

Again everything Elon says is future-aspirational. They HOPE to get to something sometime in the future. The thing they sell today IS NOT THERE.

Tesla privately admits Elon Musk has been exaggerating about ‘full self-driving’

Musk’s comments do not match the “engineering reality.”

www.theverge.com

This is the same story as the 2nd one just with slightly different wording. They even cite Tesla, in DMV docs, making it crystal clear the thing they sell today is L2-- and that anything Elon is saying about higher levels is just him "extrapolating on the rates of improvement"

So I'm not sure what argument you were even trying to make at this point- but it doesn't seem like those links do much to support....whatever it was.

Elmo is Tesla

...what?

Its often why people struggle to grasp the statement "politicians don't make law, judges do"

Who are you suggesting made such a statement?

Because that's not actually how law works, so whoever it was you probably shouldn't listen to them.

Replace "judges" with "lobbyists" and you might be on to something though!

Do you have any case law precedent to support this 'firmly worded statement'?

I'm again unclear what you're actually asking.... but generally speaking a contract between 2 people requires among other things mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance

This does not exist if Elon makes some random statement at a conference unless he's personally making it to you, and you personally respond, to him.

This DOES exist when you go to buy FSD and you are shown a specific list of what you are getting for your money, and you agree to buy THAT product and pay Tesla the money. That product does not claim to include L5 driving.


There IS a concept in law called Detrimental Reliance- but that would be something like Elon said "If you buy FSD for $15,000 today you will get level 5 driving" and then you rely on that, buy it for $15,000 today, and you don't get L5.

All the "hope to" and "very close to" language in his various statements make it pretty clear L5 isn't a thing that even exists as he's speaking, let alone that he's making a promise you would rely on to receive at the time.

Then add to that the fact that as I mention when you do actually make your purchase Tesla gives you a clear, specific, list of what you are buying-- and L5 doesn't appear there at all (and never has)