Blog WSJ: Ambitious Autopilot Push Angered Tesla Engineers

Tesla engineers are reportedly jumping ship because they don’t believe Autopilot 2.0 hardware can meet the fully self-driving promise that Elon Musk proudly touts.

The Wall Street Journal says Sterling Anderson, previously the Autopilot director, decided to leave Tesla in December in part because he didn’t agree with the claims Musk was making about the vehicle’s potential for full autonomy.

According to the WSJ (paywall):

In a meeting after the announcement, someone asked Autopilot director Sterling Anderson how Tesla could brand the product “Full Self-Driving,” several employees recall. “This was Elon’s decision,” they said he responded. Two months later, Mr. Anderson resigned.

The Autopilot division has lost some 10 employees and four managers recently, according to the report. Satish Jeyachandran, the former director of hardware engineering for Tesla’s Autopilot team, and Berta Rodriguez-Hervas, a former machine learning manager also left the company in June. Anderson was succeeded by Chris Lattner, a former Apple developer, but he left in June after just six months on the job.

Tesla has declined to comment on the report.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

That's exactly the reaction that is going to win the consumers the EAP suit. In August of 2017 it is viewed as unbelievable that Tesla would have said what they did to quarter 4 2016 buyers.

Some S/X owners here at TMC say that AP2 now nearly matches AP1. Others say not.

Even if Tesla is guilty of deception or failing to deliver in December 2016, what remedy do AP2 owners want? If Tesla has brought AP2 capability today to the level they promised, what exactly should the lawsuit filers get as compensation? A few hundred $ for the time waiting?

 

[Mo City]

Some S/X owners here at TMC say that AP2 now nearly matches AP1. Others say not.

Even if Tesla is guilty of deception or failing to deliver in December 2016, what remedy do AP2 owners want? If Tesla has brought AP2 capability today to the level they promised, what exactly should the lawsuit filers get as compensation? A few hundred $ for the time waiting?

Nobody doubted AP2 would eventually match AP1. Elon hurt his credibility big time by saying it would happen very quickly. That was a totally unnecessary blunder. However, there won't be any lawsuits over this delay.

The real issue is will AP2 ever actually deliver Level 5 autonomy. This is a (false) promise that could be very costly to the bottom line and reputation of Tesla.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Some S/X owners here at TMC say that AP2 now nearly matches AP1. Others say not.

False equivalency IMO.

I can think of ~one person on TMC saying AP2 matches AP1. I can think of ~100 saying it does not match AP1 yet.

Even if Tesla is guilty of deception or failing to deliver in December 2016, what remedy do AP2 owners want? If Tesla has brought AP2 capability today to the level they promised, what exactly should the lawsuit filers get as compensation? A few hundred $ for the time waiting?

Can't speak for everyone, but for me, the truth is enough of a remedy.

This is why we're talking, to keep Tesla accountable truth-wise. Understanding what happened, when and why and portraying it realistically amongst each other.

It might help interpreting Tesla in the future and hopefully helps in keeping Tesla a bit more on the straight and narrow too.

In the meanwhile it is interesting and educational banter.

 

[oktane]

Some S/X owners here at TMC say that AP2 now nearly matches AP1. Others say not.

Even if Tesla is guilty of deception or failing to deliver in December 2016, what remedy do AP2 owners want? If Tesla has brought AP2 capability today to the level they promised, what exactly should the lawsuit filers get as compensation? A few hundred $ for the time waiting?

Buyback and refund. Wouldn't have purchased the car had I known AP2 was a scam. I would have purchased a used AP1 or Model 3.

 

[bhzmark]

WSJ is unable to report on Tesla accurately. Recall that WSJ reported that TSLA was the subjcet of an SEC investigation. SEC Investigating Tesla for Possible Securities-Law Breach

WSJ reports lies from short sellers as news.

SEC Opening Inquiry

 

[McRat]

Some S/X owners here at TMC say that AP2 now nearly matches AP1. Others say not.

Even if Tesla is guilty of deception or failing to deliver in December 2016, what remedy do AP2 owners want? If Tesla has brought AP2 capability today to the level they promised, what exactly should the lawsuit filers get as compensation? A few hundred $ for the time waiting?

Perhaps their biggest risk is if a function that existed on the AP1 could have possibly prevented or reduced a collision after Dec 2016, they might have some liability issues like other automakers have experienced when a system behavior could have made a difference in outcome. Then the award amount is not limited to the price of the car.

I think that's the blood in the water the lawyers smell, not the price of the AP2 option. Just 1 injury is enough to fund everything. AP was marketed as a safety system, "40% safer" instead of a convenience option. That and the gal on the internet video "rocking out" in traffic with her hands off, not looking forward isn't going to help much. Since AP2 is 'better' than AP1 as of Dec 2016.

They knew the old product was safer, took no action to remedy it, which would be a recall since it's hardware, and install the older safer system. Ouch. This is how those big class action suits occur. MFR documents a risk, then ignores it. Right or wrong, this how things work today.

The whole AP1/2 liability issue might be what has delayed other automakers. They could be waiting to see what actually happens.

 

[Matias]

Some S/X owners here at TMC say that AP2 now nearly matches AP1. Others say not.

Even if Tesla is guilty of deception or failing to deliver in December 2016, what remedy do AP2 owners want? If Tesla has brought AP2 capability today to the level they promised, what exactly should the lawsuit filers get as compensation? A few hundred $ for the time waiting?

Please see this EAP description. It is absolutely certain, that current EAP is not capable of doing all that was said to be only subject to regulatory approval in December 2016. Meaning that it is currently not "at the level they promised ".

Source Order a Tesla Model X | Tesla

 

[tomas]

With the Model S in 2012, Tesla became the first automaker to provide over-the-air software updates. I would also contend that they have supplied far, far more added (and in a few cases, subtracted) features via software updates than any other vendor.

With the move to AP2 and the offering of FSD option in late 2016, they took another step... they began offering "future" options, where customers paid in advance for 'to be delivered' software features. It is pretty clear from this (and other) threads that there are some auto buyers who are not comfortable with this second step. Regarding actual liability, I believe the purchase paperwork has Tesla pretty well covered, but you never know what an individual judge or jury might decide regarding website or tweet content (vs. actual purchase contract). Regardless, I believe that any liability for advance software purchases is peanuts in the whole scheme of things, but the larger issue is how the broader market interprets and responds to this concept of paying in advance for 'to be delivered' features.

I believe in the case of AP2, Tesla had little choice. After they made the decision to move away from Mobileye, they were faced with a difficult transition. They wanted a new hardware suite, which would not have worked with Mobileye. In my mind, there were 2 options: continue with Mobileye software and hardware until AP2 software/hardware was perfected and tested - meanwhile shipping cars with hardware that was soon to be obsolete. Or what they did: ship the new hardware, and run like heck to provide the software. They could not market the car as 'regressing' from AP1, yet they knew it would take time to deliver AP1 parity. Musk's time projections were way off... as they frequently have been. Putting that aside, I am very confident they WILL deliver AP1 parity and more. So the only legit gripe for buyers is diminished software capability for some period of time. And, while people are free to say/do what they want, I think they are wasting their time tilting at this windmill.

In the case of FSD, I really wish Tesla would not pre-sell this capability, especially with the volumes coming in the 3. I believe that their contract will keep them pretty safe, since I believe regulatory approval for full FSD will be many, many years off. I also believe they will provide good value for the $3k in the form of progressive features that move down the FSD path. But, I do not think that they need the sideshow from that subset of customers who cannot handle this concept of future software delivery. It just opens up too many interpretations and expectations.

But, I do not run the company, and they have so far done pretty well with huge stretch goals and revolutionary practices... so I'll watch them do something I do not believe they should be doing... with interest.

FWIW, I will not pop for the extra $3k FSD in my two Model 3s. At risk of spending a little more, I will wait until there is some FSD functionality released so I know what I'm getting.

 

[u00mem9]

I trust Leon. He stated quite clearly that AP2 cars have the hardware to support Full-Self Driving. You can sue if you want, but I want to point out a few facts that will likely result in your case being dismissed:

1) Leon had his fingers crossed (photographic proof will be presented)

2) By "hardware", Leon meant the tires, and that should have been obvious to any informed buyer doing his due diligence.

/S

Let's discuss why Tesla's ambitious goals required them to be dishonest. That's a debatable topic. Would the company have gone under if the truth of the Mobileye situation was actually explained at the time? Would sales have fallen to zero?

'What' happened is obvious to anyone not suffering cognitive dissonance (aided in some cases by personal financial loss)...but whether or not it was 'justified' by the dire situation is something I have wondered since it became obvious AP2 was a setback.

 

[tomas]

waste of time.

 

[3Victoria]

With the Model S in 2012, Tesla became the first automaker to provide over-the-air software updates. I would also contend that they have supplied far, far more added (and in a few cases, subtracted) features via software updates than any other vendor.

With the move to AP2 and the offering of FSD option in late 2016, they took another step... they began offering "future" options, where customers paid in advance for 'to be delivered' software features. It is pretty clear from this (and other) threads that there are some auto buyers who are not comfortable with this second step. Regarding actual liability, I believe the purchase paperwork has Tesla pretty well covered, but you never know what an individual judge or jury might decide regarding website or tweet content (vs. actual purchase contract). Regardless, I believe that any liability for advance software purchases is peanuts in the whole scheme of things, but the larger issue is how the broader market interprets and responds to this concept of paying in advance for 'to be delivered' features.

I believe in the case of AP2, Tesla had little choice. After they made the decision to move away from Mobileye, they were faced with a difficult transition. They wanted a new hardware suite, which would not have worked with Mobileye. In my mind, there were 2 options: continue with Mobileye software and hardware until AP2 software/hardware was perfected and tested - meanwhile shipping cars with hardware that was soon to be obsolete. Or what they did: ship the new hardware, and run like heck to provide the software. They could not market the car as 'regressing' from AP1, yet they knew it would take time to deliver AP1 parity. Musk's time projections were way off... as they frequently have been. Putting that aside, I am very confident they WILL deliver AP1 parity and more. So the only legit gripe for buyers is diminished software capability for some period of time. And, while people are free to say/do what they want, I think they are wasting their time tilting at this windmill.

In the case of FSD, I really wish Tesla would not pre-sell this capability, especially with the volumes coming in the 3. I believe that their contract will keep them pretty safe, since I believe regulatory approval for full FSD will be many, many years off. I also believe they will provide good value for the $3k in the form of progressive features that move down the FSD path. But, I do not think that they need the sideshow from that subset of customers who cannot handle this concept of future software delivery. It just opens up too many interpretations and expectations.

But, I do not run the company, and they have so far done pretty well with huge stretch goals and revolutionary practices... so I'll watch them do something I do not believe they should be doing... with interest.

FWIW, I will not pop for the extra $3k FSD in my two Model 3s. At risk of spending a little more, I will wait until there is some FSD functionality released so I know what I'm getting.

I agree with this take on the situation. Has any upset owner just asked for his/her AP2 and/or FSD money back? Tesla has not claimed FSD money as income.

Even though I believe FSD will arrive eventually, I will chose not to buy it when my 3 arrives, but wait for further evidenced progress before purchasing. This is and has been every buyer's choice. I will pay full price because of this ... but that is ok.

 

[alcibiades]

I agree with this take on the situation. Has any upset owner just asked for his/her AP2 and/or FSD money back? Tesla has not claimed FSD money as income.

Yes, and he was denied.

Even though I believe FSD will arrive eventually, I will chose not to buy it when my 3 arrives, but wait for further evidenced progress before purchasing. This is and has been every buyer's choice. I will pay full price because of this ... but that is ok.

If things were different, they wouldn't be the same. I concede your point. If I were buying a car at an unknown time in the future, I would make different decisions then I did when I bought a car in the past under actual circumstances.

 

[alcibiades]

WSJ is unable to report on Tesla accurately. Recall that WSJ reported that TSLA was the subjcet of an SEC investigation. SEC Investigating Tesla for Possible Securities-Law Breach

WSJ reports lies from short sellers as news.

SEC Opening Inquiry

Are you a lawyer admitted to a bar in the US? Do you own a HW2 car? Do you own Tesla stock? Do you practice Securities law?

You act like a lawyer in every thread. Most recently in the Arizona AG thread in which you were dodging questions while being completely wrong.

 

[Matias]

Has any upset owner just asked for his/her AP2 and/or FSD money back? Tesla has not claimed FSD money as income.
.

IIRC @oktane, and he was refused.

 

[tomas]

If things were different, they wouldn't be the same. I concede your point. If I were buying a car at an unknown time in the future, I would make different decisions then I did when I bought a car in the past under actual circumstances.

You cannot blame anyone but yourself for decisions you regret. There has been plenty of evidence available to make an informed decision regarding the timing and probability of FSD regulatory approval.

 

[tomas]

IIRC @oktane, and he was refused.

hearsay

 

[McRat]

With the Model S in 2012, Tesla became the first automaker to provide over-the-air software updates. ...

When OTA control over cars actually started is perhaps a mystery. We do know that Tesla was adding features and fixing bugs as early as Oct 2012. We know Cadillac admitted to it publicly in 2013 when they asked owners via Email whether they wanted a reflash done to their car for the adaptive headlight system. If approved, it was done during the middle of the night with the vehicle off. Whether OnStar did OTA updates to the OnStar system itself prior to Oct 2012 is not public information, but IIRC, it did change certain aspects of it's operation dating back to about 2010? without a dealer visit.

I do remember having OnStar unlock my truck in 2004(?). Whether it was reflashing back then? I do not know.

Why would it have been secret at GM? And rare?

There was an enormous backlash against OTA "secret" vehicle communications. Worries about being hacked, spied on, warranties voided, etc, were so intense that OnStar stopping collecting anonymous data from non-subscriber cars, which was being used to map out the vehicle travel densities. And they changed their software to make it more secure. OnStar was edited to keep the FBI or anyone from spying your conversions at some point. In order for the car to listen in, the phone must ring, or you must push a button, and the radio turns off? Something like that.

Whether any other brands played with OTA in secret? Who knows?

Tesla buyers tend to be more tech savvy, and have less fear of the government spying on them.

But just because you are paranoid does not mean they aren't out to get you. We are perhaps too late to stop what we started. At first it was the crash data recorder to help improve airbag deployment. It was optional, but now is mandatory since 2014. Combining data recorders with OTA tech means things are going to change. It will start with algorithms that detect possible 'driving while intoxicated' and forward them to the PD with your GPS data. Then driving over 100 mph. Then driving 15 mph over the limit. Then rolling stops at stop signs. Etc.

 

[tomas]

When OTA control over cars actually started is perhaps a mystery. We do know that Tesla was adding features and fixing bugs as early as Oct 2012. We know Cadillac admitted to it publicly in 2013 when they asked owners via Email whether they wanted a reflash done to their car for the adaptive headlight system. If approved, it was done during the middle of the night with the vehicle off. Whether OnStar did OTA updates to the OnStar system itself prior to Oct 2012 is not public information, but IIRC, it did change certain aspects of it's operation dating back to about 2010? without a dealer visit.

I do remember having OnStar unlock my truck in 2004(?). Whether it was reflashing back then? I do not know.

Why would it have been secret at GM? And rare?

There was an enormous backlash against OTA "secret" vehicle communications. Worries about being hacked, spied on, warranties voided, etc, were so intense that OnStar stopping collecting anonymous data from non-subscriber cars, which was being used to map out the vehicle travel densities. And they changed their software to make it more secure. OnStar was edited to keep the FBI or anyone from spying your conversions at some point. In order for the car to listen in, the phone must ring, or you must push a button, and the radio turns off? Something like that.

Whether any other brands played with OTA in secret? Who knows?

Tesla buyers tend to be more tech savvy, and have less fear of the government spying on them.

But just because you are paranoid does not mean they aren't out to get you. We are perhaps too late to stop what we started. At first it was the crash data recorder to help improve airbag deployment. It was optional, but now is mandatory since 2014. Combining data recorders with OTA tech means things are going to change. It will start with algorithms that detect possible 'driving while intoxicated' and forward them to the PD with your GPS data. Then driving over 100 mph. Then driving 15 mph over the limit. Then rolling stops at stop signs. Etc.

In the 90s, my company sponsored a formula 1 team. I got detailed tours of the pit setup and the telemetry. The fact that the team could read out real time data and make adjustments was way cool to me. While it could certainly be abused, I think the opportunities it affords are huge and exciting. Like crowd-sourcing info for maps that underlie driver assistance features. Regardless of who did first, I think Tesla has done it the most (in the consumer vehicle sector).

 

[Krugerrand]

Nobody doubted AP2 would eventually match AP1. Elon hurt his credibility big time by saying it would happen very quickly. That was a totally unnecessary blunder. However, there won't be any lawsuits over this delay.

The real issue is will AP2 ever actually deliver Level 5 autonomy. This is a (false) promise that could be very costly to the bottom line and reputation of Tesla.

Meh. All this matters to a handful of people, everyone else doesn't care. Unhappy people are always more vocal than happy people. Most are happy. In the end, none of this will matter.

 

[Aieukl378]

I'd like to personally thank the angry, overworked engineers who worked on AP. I couldn't have driven endless miles in safety and relaxation without you!