This post works much better with removal of the text block between your two statements and read as telling yourself something
Literally the entire history of regulation and scrutiny around Tesla says this is....not a reasonable take....on how that'd go.
They
really are not.
Agreed- Tesla needs at least L4 though, which is what Waymo is. FSDb is not even 3. There are fundamental parts of an L3 (or even moreso L4) system that simply do not exist in FSDb. This isn't "It just needs to get a little better at what it does" this is "it needs to BOTH get a
lot better at what it does, plus have multiple additional capabilities and features added that don't exist at all yet in the system.
Most people SUPER optimistic on this stuff just can't be bothered to understand all the parts of self driving and think L4 is just really good L2. It's fundamentally not.
None of which is to say those things can't potentially be added-- some easier than others-- but they're not things you go from "not having at all" "to L4 safe and functional" in months. And at least one (a complete OEDR) it's possible will require more hardware than exists on cars today (more on that in a second)
That depends on what it turns out the actual needed HW is for L4. As that does not exist yet on a Tesla nobody
actually knows yet.
Remember when Tesla was sure HW2 was enough? It wasn't. Remember when they were sure HW2.0 cameras were enough? They weren't.
It's possible existing fleet HW isn't enough either. Or it might be. But nobody
knows that yet- therefore we don't know if Tesla needs new HW or not for RTs.
If by safety drivers you mean actual drivers, sure. They could do that today.
it won't be a robotaxi, and it'll never be anything but the human driving the thing though.
Doing that wouldn't make much sense economically however-- uber and lyft generally lose money.