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.

 

[tomas]

Geez, if I ever get my undies in a bundle it is going to be about something much more potentially harmful than figuring out how much I was damaged by the fact that elements of a $5,000 feature were delivered later than I expected. The most you could expect out of that would be half (lawyers fees) of half (because it wasn't ALL of the features that were late) of the delay (less than 1 year, because I suspect more than parity by December) vs. the expected depreciation life of the asset. So, if a car is 5 years, then 50% of 50% of <$1000. Which is <$250. That's before the settlement, which is usually a fraction of actual damages. The only one who makes money on that is the lawyer who gets enough owners wound up to go to the game. Any further judgement would have to be punitive, and good luck with that! If I had purchased EAP, I guess I would just want the features ASAP, and I would expect it to be a corporate priority to provide them. Any evidence that it is not? I know a bunch of people on OTHER threads who are aggravated that all other software fixes seem to have taken a back seat to EAP.

I guess everyone has to pick their cause, but I cannot understand who would pick this one and why. I sort of understand with people who were willing to die on the HP hill (though I don't agree), or the people who are willing to die on the launch limit hill. Heck, there was a day when I was debating whether to die on the A battery hill. But this?

 

[alcibiades]

Why? We're not privy to thoughts of RN's about the doctor doing surgery on us. We're not privy to thoughts of the cooks in the kitchens of our favorite restaurants. We're not privy to the thoughts of workers on the construction crew building the hotel we'll stay in when it's complete. We're not privy to the thoughts of lawyers when presenting cases in front of various judges. Indeed, you don't want to know what they think. You only think you do because you think it'll support your position.

You might be surprised to learn that in the US the public generally has access to court records and court cases are generally open to the public. We could, like, sit in the courtroom. It certainly doesn't seem like this is a case that would get sealed. And even then someone could FOIA it.

And let's be honest, I don't think Cruise and Waymo with their actual FSD coding is particularly interested in any tech that might have to be discussed. LOL! But that could get redacted without affecting the reveal of its state of readiness at time of announcement.

I understand why someone wouldn't be interested in this. Of course, I don't understand why such people post repeatedly about how uninterested they are. I don't post on My Little Ponies forums or tell people buying Model 3s that I think not having an IC is fine and they should stop talking about it. I guess I'm virtuous just like Tesla!

ps: @bonnie let me know! Thanks!

 

[Tam]

...just because it's funny...Nothing E about EAP...

It was clear for me when AP2 was announced that I should not expect it working right away, and if it would, I expected it to partially work gradually with subsequent firmware updates.

I think you think Tesla failed with its statement:

"Tesla's Enhanced Autopilot software is expected to complete validation and be rolled out to your car via an over-the-air update in December 2016, subject to regulatory approval."

If Tesla says "order today and you can expect a delivery in October", to me the word "expect" is a soft, not a guaranteed deadline.

Otherwise, we would have many lawsuits about missing an expected delivery timeline.

"Roll out" doesn't mean instantaneous finalization of the delivery process. It means a lengthy process, and in this case: 1,000 owners got it first.

And there are still many more to get it.

And even when all got it that time, there are still more subsequent versions to be rolled out. It's perpetual until the final product is finished.

So Tesla did fulfill its soft deadline in 12/2016 with a start, not a finish, for 1,000 owners, not all.

And that's a nature of a "roll-out".

And we still in the process of a "roll-out", and it is not a finished product just yet.

Notice: There's a soft target to roll out but there's none for when the finish will be.

 

[3Victoria]

Tesla/EM has said multiple times thatearly adopters help fund further development. EAP and FSD are in development, and my opinion is that that was made clear. Yes, one can be disappointed at the slower than hoped timeline, but initiating a lawsuit seems to be the action of the self-absorbed.

 

[u00mem9]

I remember the sentiment on this forum in Dec of 2016 when EAP wasn't yet released...it was basically that every customer should have known Tesla is always off on their schedules.

But now it's 9 months later...we know the situation internally with much more detail including that the reasons for suddenly dropping AP1 had NOTHING to do with innovation or progress. But I still see lots of posts that suggest buyers should have known Tesla would be a year late and the YouTube video launched simultaneously with the offer to buy "Full Self Driving (validation and regulatory approval pending)".

Can someone tell me exactly what buyers should have expected in Oct 2016?

 

[EV-lutioin]

I mean it is obvious that's what was going on with the exodus - employees got disheartened by Elon's over-promises.

Nothing is truly obvious unless backed by observable and measurable evidence. Everything else is considered speculation.

 

[Tam]

...expected in Oct 2016?

This is the end portion of the 10/2016 announcement which I could summarize right away that the hardware wouldn't even start to do any thing for its owners until incremental firmware updates are done:

"Before activating the features enabled by the new hardware, we will further calibrate the system using millions of miles of real-world driving to ensure significant improvements to safety and convenience. While this is occurring, Teslas with new hardware will temporarily lack certain features currently available on Teslas with first-generation Autopilot hardware, including some standard safety features such as automatic emergency braking, collision warning, lane holding and active cruise control. As these features are robustly validated we will enable them over the air, together with a rapidly expanding set of entirely new features. As always, our over-the-air software updates will keep customers at the forefront of technology and continue to make every Tesla, including those equipped with first-generation Autopilot and earlier cars, more capable over time."

 

[u00mem9]

That paragraph comes after the entire pronouncement of FSD and the now-dubious video...from that a buyer should expect sub-mobileye capability 11months later? Obviously not.

Also, just to reiterate, the implication of Tesla's announcement is that "calibration" will continue until sufficient blah blah blah...do you find that to be an honest statement of the system outlook in October of 2016? It is true that "calibration", and "regulatory approval" are going to need to be completed before customers receive the capability...but it turns out the entire development process was also going to need to get started

 

[speedy]

This is the end portion of the 10/2016 announcement which I could summarize right away that the hardware wouldn't even start to do any thing for its owners until incremental firmware updates are done:

"Before activating the features enabled by the new hardware, we will further calibrate the system using millions of miles of real-world driving to ensure significant improvements to safety and convenience. While this is occurring, Teslas with new hardware will temporarily lack certain features currently available on Teslas with first-generation Autopilot hardware, including some standard safety features such as automatic emergency braking, collision warning, lane holding and active cruise control. As these features are robustly validated we will enable them over the air, together with a rapidly expanding set of entirely new features. As always, our over-the-air software updates will keep customers at the forefront of technology and continue to make every Tesla, including those equipped with first-generation Autopilot and earlier cars, more capable over time."

Does this mean that my soon to be delivered Model S (which will apparently have some sort of new AP hardware, as designated by a new option code APH3 in the specifications) will NOT have the basic safety features such as automatic emergency braking and collision warning? I didn't purchase the EAP option but assumed that the safety features would be enabled based on the features listed for the car... Not that you would depend of those features in lieu of attentive driving, but it would be nice to know if it's disabled....

 

[whitex]

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.

Or, extend the bumper-to-bumper warranty until 6 months after FSD has reached all of it's currently advertised capabilities. "Put your money where your mouth is" move. This would give Tesla a 4 year runway to get there (since first AP2 car was delivered), would cost them nothing (if they can deliver in the timeline Elon claims), and would silence most of the critics. It would probably sell some extra cars too.

 

[Tam]

...Does this mean...

No.

Cars are updated with latest firmware, so you don't lack any of those basic safety features listed on 10/2016.

But of course, before you buy, it is good to ask "are those safety features working yet since you said didn't work in 10/2016?"

 

[Tam]

...honest statement...

Just like in AP1 announcement:

"The introduction of this hardware is just the first step for Autopilot in Model S. We will continue to develop new capabilities and deliver them through over-the-air software updates, keeping our customers at the forefront of driving technology."

It meant when you bought it, you might have to wait a long time until the software updates would unlock all the features.

And people did. They had to wait for over a year for Autosteer to work.

There is no dishonesty in Tesla's statement.

I don't see how AP2's statement is dishonest when it actually rolled out Autosteer capped at 35MPH for the first 1,000 owners just in less than 3 months.

I don't see why you would doubt on "calibration".

If there's no calibration, there wouldn't be a need to cap Autosteer to 35MPH first, then 45, then 55, then 65, then at last 90MPH.

Yes. It's calibration. And there is no dishonesty there.

 

[whitex]

I miss the old days when people argued incessantly when Tesla took away the adjustable suspension option for a period of time. Oh, the discourse of Tesla protecting their customer's cars and lives. Then when Tesla gave everyone a free Titanium under shield on their car and gave back adjustable suspension height - crickets from the unhappy mass and forgotten like it never happened.

This too shall pass.

Protecting customer's lives? LOL Elon himself wrote a blog how astronomically low the chance of battery puncture is, and even if you hit that lottery, you have 15 minutes or more to pull over, even get your stuff and get out. What BS'er told you they protected customer's lives with that? They did what they did because the media overreacted to 2 or 3 fires, all of which people walked away from with plenty of warning, and one of them being a guy who plowed through a concrete wall with his Model S.

 

[tomas]

Protecting customer's lives? LOL Elon himself wrote a blog how astronomically low the chance of battery puncture is, and even if you hit that lottery, you have 15 minutes or more to pull over, even get your stuff and get out. What BS'er told you they protected customer's lives with that? They did what they did because the media overreacted to 2 or 3 fires, all of which people walked away from with plenty of warning, and one of them being a guy who plowed through a concrete wall with his Model S.

Sorry, maybe missing the subtlety. what is your point?

 

[Krugerrand]

Protecting customer's lives? LOL Elon himself wrote a blog how astronomically low the chance of battery puncture is, and even if you hit that lottery, you have 15 minutes or more to pull over, even get your stuff and get out. What BS'er told you they protected customer's lives with that? They did what they did because the media overreacted to 2 or 3 fires, all of which people walked away from with plenty of warning, and one of them being a guy who plowed through a concrete wall with his Model S.

Yeah, I know there was minimal chance the car would start on fire, blah, blah, blah. But no, you are incorrect. They didn't do the titanium shield because the media over reacted. They did it because it was the right thing to do to protect customers and bring those chances down to less than zero chance. That's why every single car made post that original highway incident has one.

 

[Krugerrand]

You might be surprised to learn that in the US the public generally has access to court records and court cases are generally open to the public. We could, like, sit in the courtroom. It certainly doesn't seem like this is a case that would get sealed. And even then someone could FOIA it.

And let's be honest, I don't think Cruise and Waymo with their actual FSD coding is particularly interested in any tech that might have to be discussed. LOL! But that could get redacted without affecting the reveal of its state of readiness at time of announcement.

I understand why someone wouldn't be interested in this. Of course, I don't understand why such people post repeatedly about how uninterested they are. I don't post on My Little Ponies forums or tell people buying Model 3s that I think not having an IC is fine and they should stop talking about it. I guess I'm virtuous just like Tesla!

ps: @bonnie let me know! Thanks!

Nope, not surprised and doesn't address the point which was you going on like it's some Tesla conspiracy and them being out to get you. It's not. They aren't.

 

[whitex]

Tesla has never done anything with malice or intent to screw consumers. Ever. Tesla has always tried to fix their mistakes and make things right for their 'reasonable' customers. That's the big ....ing difference here. This isn't Diesel Gate, though I know there are some who want to make it so.

Intent to screw the customer? I agree, they never do anything with that as a goal. However, screwing customers in order to further their own goals, that they have done. Why else would they advertise 691hp power on P85D and use 1ft rollout number only on P85D while putting it in the same spec/comparison table as the actual max produced power and non-1ft-rollout 0-60 numbers for non-P. Are you saying it was just pure incompetence on Tesla side, rather than intent to deceive the customer by making the P85D seem so much better to justify why people should spend an extra $25K over 85D?

 

[whitex]

Yeah, I know there was minimal chance the car would start on fire, blah, blah, blah. But no, you are incorrect. They didn't do the titanium shield because the media over reacted. They did it because it was the right thing to do to protect customers and bring those chances down to less than zero chance. That's why every single car made post that original highway incident has one.

Less than zero chance? Ok, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one as explaining to you why there is no such thing is way outside the scope of this thread.

 

[oktane]

Why? We're not privy to thoughts of RN's about the doctor doing surgery on us. We're not privy to thoughts of the cooks in the kitchens of our favorite restaurants. We're not privy to the thoughts of workers on the construction crew building the hotel we'll stay in when it's complete. We're not privy to the thoughts of lawyers when presenting cases in front of various judges. Indeed, you don't want to know what they think. You only think you do because you think it'll support your position.

Then I guess you are just uninformed? Would you really let a surgeon operate on you without digging a little bit? Would you not ask your lawyer which judge to try to get to hear your case?

No doubt there are some really good people at Tesla, like in any organization. I have met them. My sales person and his manager are solid guys. I think they also believed the hype which led them to sell it to me. However that does not excuse Elon or upper-level management at Tesla who knew they were lying to us early AP2 victims through their teeth.

 

[Electroman]

I don't quite understand all the scorn thrown against AP2 by a few folks here. I recently had an opportunity to get an X for an overnight test drive, and my comparison of AP2 with AP1 is here:

2017.28.4 cf44833

TLDR: AP2 and AP1 drive pretty much the same, with some pluses and minuses, but nothing to throw a fit over..