> Yes, why shouldn't it go to the same dataset? I didn't say it should or shouldn't, I was just asking about the data you are using. > Sure, they can drive on

> Yes, why shouldn't it go to the same dataset? I didn't say it should or shouldn't, I was just asking about the data you are using. > Sure, they can drive only in routes that are less difficult. But they have a product to develop (a public robotaxi service) and areas to expand. So they don't really have an incentive to exclusively work towards artificially reducing disengagement rate. Oh they absolutely do if people buying their shares, their services, employing them, or writing legislation, or just general public attitudes are influenced by this data. The marginal cost of cars is so low given the costs involved that it would be trivial to add easy miles while still doing difficult routes to develop the product. Including doing most of the difficult work in other states. > Nope, I indeed mean they are better than Tesla. There are no other (aspiring or current) L4+ systems that don't use lidar. When Tesla used to report disengagement rate in CA, they were still worse than their competitors. That and the tons of YouTube videos showing FSD being unable to handle basic scenarios tells us their current disengagement rate is far worse than competitors. Okay, so not the objective data I wanted but thanks for helping. > What they should be really doing is start being transparent and report safety data like everyone else. I don't think this is really a matter of transparency given all the problems with the data and tests we've just identified. When the products and are made available to the public that would be a different matter.