What is SAE Level 5 and can Tesla actually achieve it?

[diplomat33]

I know fsd beta isn't level 5, but it's very similar to how a level 5 feature should operate, minus any expectation that the user take over. With FSD beta, you can drop the pin anywhere on the map, and the car will try to drive on public roads to get there. This is unlike Waymo's level 4 system, where you are limited in where you can drop the pin.

Well, Tesla's FSD has a L5-like ODD. We see that in the fact that Tesla has developed features for every piece of L5's ODD. Smart summon and Auto Park covers the parking lot ODD, NOA covers the highway ODD and FSD Beta covers the city/residential ODD. Of course, we know that FSD is L2. Basically, FSD is a L2 system but with the ODD of L5.

There are some key things missing to be L5. For one, FSD is missing some OEDR, hence why it needs a human driver and is L2. Also, FSD requires driver intervention sometimes at the beginning or end of a trip so it is not truly "end to end". You can input any destination but I don't think you can drop any point and have the car drive and auto park on its own, can it? If FSD beta can drive you to a point on the map but you need to take over to get to your preferred drop off point or park the car, then it is not L5. Last, summon is a key part of L4/L5. A L4/L5 car can drive with no human so you should be able to summon it from anywhere as well. We see this with Waymo. A person in the geofenced area can summon the Waymo car from the app and the car will come to you and pick you up. FSD Beta obviously can't do that yet since it is L2. One thing that shows that Waymo is L4 is that it is truly "end to end" FSD in the geofenced ODD. You can summon the car, and it comes to you, drives you, and drops you off, with no input other than pushing the "start ride" button. L5 needs to be similar just without geofencing. L5 means you can summon the car, and it picks you from anywhere, takes you anywhere and drops you off anywhere, with no input from you other than pushing "start" when you are settled in and ready for the car to go.

 

[powertoold]

You can input any destination but I don't think you can drop any point and have the car drive and auto park on its own, can it?

I don't think auto park is required for level 5, but yes, it would seem that a level 5 car for personal use must have some auto park functionality. Otherwise, it'd have to just drive around aimlessly until you summon it back, lol.

But yes, fsd beta isn't level 5, but it has elements of a level 5 feature, mostly the ability to drop the pin anywhere you want, regardless of current weather conditions.

 

[powertoold]

no input from you other than pushing "start" when you are settled in and ready for the car to go.

Yes, no expected or required input, but you can still take control by choice.

 

[Goose66]

FSD is missing some OEDR, hence why it needs a human driver and is L2

I think there is more of a fundamental design issue here that goes beyond FSD "missing some OEDR." Tesla's approach seems to be that not only will the driver perform the primary OEDR function, but will proactively intervene when necessary to take over the driving task. For true L3 (as defined in the standard), the car should perform the OEDR, with the driver "receptive to ADS-issued requests to intervene" when an anomaly is detected. I would assume the word "receptive" implies some fail-safe response if intervention doesn't come. In watching the videos of FSD Beta, I don't see this fail-safe response or even that many FSD-issued requests to intervene. It just looks like FSD is making a critical error and the driver is proactively intervening to avoid a collision. That suggests to me that we are farther away from L3 than just FSD "missing some OEDR."

This is obviously the biggest step! I purchased my FSD in 2018, and despite the promises made would be happy if it could achieve L3 on NoA (i.e., highway driving) like SuperCruise. I also believe this is the true technical limit of the system given the sensors and hardware in the cars today.

 

[Knightshade]

People keep confusing the "fsd beta" which is really just "L2 navigate on city streets" with the final FSD product.

Green has remarked on this, as internally all this "new" code is explicitly city streets stuff, not "FSD", and thus shouldn't carry any expectation of higher than L2 as it stands now.

The CA DMV disclosures reflect these same facts.

 

[diplomat33]

People keep confusing the "fsd beta" which is really just "L2 navigate on city streets" with the final FSD product.

Green has remarked on this, as internally all this "new" code is explicitly city streets stuff, not "FSD", and thus shouldn't carry any expectation of higher than L2 as it stands now.

The CA DMV disclosures reflect these same facts.

Are you saying that there is separate FSD code? Or you are saying that at some point later, after Tesla improves smart summon, auto park, NOA, navigate on city streets etc, Tesla will eventually tie it all together into real FSD?

 

[Knightshade]

Are you saying that there is separate FSD code?

The thing being called "FSD Beta" is simply the city streets code.

It doesn't change any other part of the code (no changes to summon, regular highway driving, NoA, autopark, etc).

Its been in the code in some form for a good while (Green mentioned it well before it was available to anyone).

It's in the firmware everyone has just not enabled for all but the 2000 early testers.


THAT code, specifically, is what the CA DMV letter is about.

Some folks keep mixing that up with "FSD" as a final product and saying LOOK TESLA ADMITS FSD ISN'T EVEN MEANT TO BE L5 AND CAN'T BE"

Which is not, at all, the case, nor what that letter is about.

Some the OEDR limits in that letter, for example, have no bearing on the final FSD product.

 

[diplomat33]

The thing being called "FSD Beta" is simply the city streets code.

It doesn't change any other part of the code (no changes to summon, regular highway driving, NoA, autopark, etc).

Its been in the code in some form for a good while (Green mentioned it well before it was available to anyone).

It's in the firmware everyone has just not enabled for all but the 2000 early testers.


THAT code, specifically, is what the CA DMV letter is about.

Some folks keep mixing that up with "FSD" as a final product and saying LOOK TESLA ADMITS FSD ISN'T EVEN MEANT TO BE L5 AND CAN'T BE"

Which is not, at all, the case, nor what that letter is about.

Some the OEDR limits in that letter, for example, have no bearing on the final FSD product.

I get that. But Tesla is selling those features as "FSD". Smart Summon, Auto Park, NOA, FSD Beta, are what Tesla is selling as FSD. So that is what FSD is right now. Obviously, FSD will improve over time. We have not see the final product yet. But the features we have now is the current state of FSD.

 

[Knightshade]

I get that. But Tesla is selling those features as "FSD". Smart Summon, Auto Park, NOA, FSD Beta, are what Tesla is selling as FSD. So that is what FSD is right now. Obviously, FSD will improve over time. We have not see the final product yet. But the features we have now is the current state of FSD.

This threatens to derail back to the "that depends when you bought FSD" debate.

That's absolutely not the FSD I purchased in 2018 for example. I purchased, at minimum, L4 self driving. (4 vs 5 in what I bought is a whole other debate).

Certainly those who bought since ~March 2019 what you say is accurate though as far as the listed features when you buy it.

 

[mikes_fsd]

That's absolutely not the FSD I purchased in 2018 for example. I purchased, at minimum, L4 self driving. (4 vs 5 in what I bought is a whole other debate).

LMFAO....
Again, FSD Beta Videos (and questions for FSD Beta drivers)
You were sold a process of getting to FSD, not just the final product! (even if you bought in October 2016)

 

[rxlawdude]

I purchased, at minimum, L4 self driving. (4 vs 5 in what I bought is a whole other debate).

Please provide a shred of evidence that says anything about SAE L4 in your purchase contract.

 

[Goose66]

Again, are we saying that the legal boilerplate on the Tesla website is the only go-by at any point? In other words, the CEO's promises mean nothing as to what a reasonable person should expect (and would have paid for) with the company's products?

 

[rxlawdude]

Again, are we saying that the legal boilerplate on the Tesla website is the only go-by at any point? In other words, the CEO's promises mean nothing as to what a reasonable person should expect (and would have paid for) with the company's products?

If you look at your contract, it specifically states that claims by employees do not bind Tesla in any way. So, no, you can't go on breach of promise theory based on Musk's tweets. You might have a "false advertising" theory, but even that's tenuous, given the clear disclaimer that anyone who bought FSD had to at least see when they clicked by it.

 

[Knightshade]

Please provide a shred of evidence that says anything about SAE L4 in your purchase contract.

Sure.

Attached is what the order process when I selected the FSD option said I was paying for promised

That's a legally binding contract describing what I was buying for my $3000, not something some rando Tesla employee told me.

It clearly describes capabilities that are at minimum L4.

Arguably L5, but the "almost all" language would probably let L4 be good enough to satisfy the promise.

 

[Knightshade]

You were sold a process of getting to FSD, not just the final product! (even if you bought in October 2016)
View attachment 651863

I never said otherwise.

But if they never get to L4, they failed to deliver what I paid for.

As you've had explained to you roughly 267 times now and keep pretending it's the first you're hearing of it.


You've also has it explained a similar # of times the "regulatory approval" bit is a complete red herring.

If they actually had L4 capable SW now, they could turn it on today and it'd be legal in a number of US states. NO further "waiting for approval" required. It's already legal

They don't turn it on, because they lack the capability of delivering a safe L4 or L5 system right now.

They still hope to- certainly. But it's not lack of approval preventing them from delivering it at all. They'll need additional approval in SOME places, but not quite a few others.

 

[rxlawdude]

Sure.

Attached is what the order process when I selected the FSD option said I was paying for promised

That's a legally binding contract describing what I was buying for my $3000, not something some rando Tesla employee told me.

It clearly describes capabilities that are at minimum L4.

Arguably L5, but the "almost all" language would probably let L4 be good enough to satisfy the promise.

Description did not say SAE L5. Enough disclaimers to pretty much kill a legal attack. Do you have a contract that gives date certain when the described functions would be fully implemented?

 

[Dan D.]

Description did not say SAE L5. Enough disclaimers to pretty much kill a legal attack. Do you have a contract that gives date certain when the described functions would be fully implemented?

If Tesla made the FSD purchase transferable it might improve the situation. As it stands now these people are complaining because they do not appear to be getting the expected product during a reasonable amount of time, in some cases beyond the length of their ownership of the car. Even without a specific due date there would be a reasonable limit of expectation of delivery. Elon's CEO statements about FSD that imply time-certainty would also count as a reasonable expectation of delivery. Someone has to try it in court and see where it leads. None of us really know do we, the contract will have to be tested in court.

 

[Knightshade]

Description did not say SAE L5.

Neither did I.

I said the description was at least L4

Which it is.

It describes a system where the car can make entire trips, start to finish, without ever needing a human to perform the dynamic driving task.

That's L4- and with a very broad ODD too.

You could make an ARGUMENT it's L5, since the word says in almost all situations (which L5 is all situations other than those a human can't drive) but you can at least have an argument about 4 vs 5 there.

There's no argument at all to be had the description of what I bought is at least L4.

Enough disclaimers to pretty much kill a legal attack.

This is a pretty common, but not accurate, idea about the law and contracts. There's lots of rights a person can't disclaim or sign away.

Do you have a contract that gives date certain when the described functions would be fully implemented?

Of course not.

That's irrelevant though.

There are standards are reasonableness for delivering things bought in a commercial transaction (there's both federal and state laws on this- and many more in places like the EU with even greater consumer protections.

Tesla, as a business, if they get another few years down the road having sold an L4 system without having delivered it is likely to face a bevy of lawsuits in this regard.

These will include a ton of discovery requests for internal docs on the development process, and provide a lot of evidence for the jury to hear about if Tesla [B}when they sold the product[/B} genuinely had a path to delivering it or not.

They'll provide a lot of evidence to speak to if any of the forward-looking delivery timelines they promised over the years, which are not binding but do[/B} require the company to have had a good faith basis for saying them when they said them actually had that good faith basis or not.


Possibly they do- and Tesla just perpetually always sincerely thought, even among internal engineers not just Elon, that FSD was REALLY close every single time.


Even better of course would be they actually deliver L4 and moot the whole issue. Though I remain very dubious they can do so (without heavily restricting the ODD for at least weather) on the current sensor suite.



All the above remains irrelevant to the original fact they sold [B}me (and everyone who bought FSD before the spring 2019 change) L4- which was the original claim you asked me to provide a "shred" of evidence for- and I provided Teslas own words in the purchase process to do so.

 

[Goose66]

If you look at your contract, it specifically states that claims by employees do not bind Tesla in any way. So, no, you can't go on breach of promise theory based on Musk's tweets. You might have a "false advertising" theory, but even that's tenuous, given the clear disclaimer that anyone who bought FSD had to at least see when they clicked by it.

First, who's talking about suing in court? I thought this conversation was about what FSD was designed/promised to do and how close they are to it. I think there is ample "evidence" in Tesla's online materials and Elon's tweets that Telsa intends, or at least intended, for FSD to be L5.

As far as legal stuff, there is a whole section of law and the UCC that would apply here in the U.S. beyond the language of the contract. BTW, tell me the name of your law firm so that I am sure not to hire them for my contract cases!

 

[rxlawdude]

First, who's talking about suing in court? I thought this conversation was about what FSD was designed/promised to do and how close they are to it. I think there is ample "evidence" in Tesla's online materials and Elon's tweets that Telsa intends, or at least intended, for FSD to be L5.

As far as legal stuff, there is a whole section of law and the UCC that would apply here in the U.S. beyond the language of the contract. BTW, tell me the name of your law firm so that I am sure not to hire them for my contract cases!

If you have to ask the question about suing Tesla, I guess you haven't been watching threads here.

Of course UCC applies, but again, where is a legally binding, contractual obligation assumed from marketing speak that is not binding? If you can show me specifics of anyone's contract with Tesla where it states that FSD will be fully functional on x date, I'd love to see your evidence.

As to my firm, LOL!