Will Tesla ever “Solve” Full Self Driving?
We recorded 12 claims from this post. 4 were checked against evidence. 8 can’t be checked. 7 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (12)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“The best argument that Tesla might not survive if its massive bet on self-driving fails comes from Elon Musk himself.”
Our reading: Tesla might not survive as a company if its massive bet on self-driving fails.
No horizon
Only if: if its bet on self-driving fails
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“This morning’s fresh data dump from NHTSA should be a bit of a wakeup call to those who have gone long on Tesla, if they are thinking that a solution to Full Self Driving is in sight. The data aren’t devastating, but they aren’t so promising either, and they raise of lot of questions.”
Our reading: The new NHTSA data should be a bit of a wakeup call to those who have gone long on Tesla thinking a Full Self Driving solution is in sight; the data aren't devastating, but they aren't so promising either, and they raise a lot of questions.
No horizon
Scope: those who have gone long on Tesla
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“It’s fantastic that NHTSA is now pushing manufacturers to release incident data, and but we need soooo much more data (eg about miles driven) if we are to look at the money question—how safe is all this, really—in a truly scientific way.”
Our reading: Much more data, such as miles driven, is needed if we are to assess in a truly scientific way how safe driver-assist and self-driving systems really are.
No horizon
Qualifier: if we are to assess safety in a truly scientific way
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Is that good, or bad? I don’t know it, but it’s enough to be concerning. Why? Because .75 incidents a day comes from a very limited trial of computer-assisted driving relative to the ambition of full-self-driving.”
Our reading: Although he does not know whether it is good or bad, Tesla's roughly 0.75 ADAS incidents per day is enough to be concerning because it comes from a very limited trial of computer-assisted driving relative to the ambition of full self-driving.
No horizon
Qualifier: he does not know whether the rate is good or bad
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“Clearly, the number of incidents would go up, as the number of vehicles went up, and would also go up significantly as the systems were more regularly challenged with more difficult driving conditions (bad weather, more erratic pedestrians, etc), and likely jump radically if we took humans out of the loop altogether.”
Our reading: If the whole US fleet used current self-driving software, incidents would rise with more vehicles and harder conditions, and likely jump radically without humans in the loop.
No horizon
Only if: if the entire US fleet used such software
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“Because it shows that the people who really claim to be working on full self-driving (which Tesla waffles on1) are having plenty of problems of their own.”
Our reading: Companies working on full (Level 5) self-driving are having plenty of problems, per NHTSA ADS data.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: Support is for repeated crash involvement, not technical fault or comparative danger.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Conditional forecast
“As far as I can tell, nobody has a real solution to the outlier problem of coping with unusual circumstances; without it, full self driving will remain a pipe dream.”
Our reading: Without a solution to the outlier problem, full self-driving will not be achieved.
No deadline stated Evidence as of
Only if: without a solution to the outlier problem
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“Indeed, the NHTSA report data show that even some pretty ordinary circumstances, like avoiding stopped vehicles, are continuing to prove problematic.”
Our reading: NHTSA data show even ordinary circumstances like avoiding stopped vehicles remain problematic for automated driving systems.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The decisive source is NHTSA's contemporaneous investigation, not a verified extraction of the specific June 15 summary tables.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“Level 5 has to handle it all; everyday stopped vehicles, weird outliers and so forth. We’re just not there.”
Our reading: Level 5 self-driving that handles everything has not been achieved.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The industry-wide finding relies on contemporaneous reporting; the primary permit corroborates a particular deployment.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“For example, we lack data on whether drivers use such systems as directed, and need to enforce vigorous mechanisms to make sure drivers don’t tune out.”
Our reading: Vigorous mechanisms should be enforced to ensure drivers using Level 2 driver-assist don't tune out.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Does that mean that society should give up on building driverless cars? Absolutely not.”
Our reading: Society should not give up on building driverless cars.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“But our experiments in building them need to be strictly regulated, especially when nonconsenting human beings become unwilling participants. And our requirements on data transparency need to be vastly stricter.”
Our reading: Driverless car experiments should be strictly regulated, and data transparency requirements should be vastly stricter.
No horizon
Qualifier: especially when nonconsenting people are involved
Held from this post (7)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: His informal read, while still lacking a lot of information he would like to see, is that neither Tesla nor Waymo is anywhere close to something we could use every day, all the time, wherever one wanted to go.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The record does not meet the current rules. Our reading, not assessed: Tesla's product names mislead customers about capability and may lead to inattention, accidents, and deaths.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: Fully autonomous Level 5 driverless cars that safely go from any point A to any point B will not arrive any time soon.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews reached different assessments. Our reading, not assessed: Given that Tesla and Waymo aren't close despite their massive investment in the technology, he seriously doubts anyone else is close either to self-driving usable every day, all the time, anywhere.