4 ms·

From what I've seen on YouTube the cars do drive themselves. This seems more like the type of thing with AI where people change the goal posts of what AI means.

From what I've seen on YouTube the cars do drive themselves. This seems more like the type of thing with AI where people change the goal posts of what AI means. Just because a car did not slow down in a school zone, that doesn't mean that the car wasn't driving itself.

loloquwowndueo 6mo ago
By that logic it’s ok if the car slams itself against a concrete wall - just because it failed to stop in time doesn’t mean it wasn’t driving itself. Self driving cars are supposed to obey the same rules as human drivers.
- RajT88 6mo ago
  Tesla FSD is vulnerable to RoadRunner and Wile E. Coyote style tricks.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - qingcharles 6mo ago
    Fortunately the ACME products are flawed and subject to their own litigation, see e.g. Coyote vs. ACME (2026).
  - iknowstuff 6mo ago
    it's not. that vid was using autopilot, not fsd, and subsequent videos using actual new FSD were fine
    - Marsymars 6mo ago
      > it's not. "Tesla FSD is invulnerable to tricks" is a pretty strong claim.
      - iknowstuff 6mo ago
        So is “Vulnerable to wilecoyote”
- roenxi 6mo ago
  Well ... yes. By that logic it is the case. It applies to humans too - if a human slams their car into a concrete wall then the human was still driving the car. They did a bad job of it, but they were in fact driving. A car being driven autonomously doesn't imply much about the quality of that driving. They're still going to make bad decisions and have accidents, just like humans do (a friend of mine died slamming their car into a tree). There is probably some minimum where we'd say that it isn't really driving because it can't do anything right, but modern self driving systems are past that.
  - loloquwowndueo 6mo ago
    > A car being driven autonomously doesn't imply much about the quality of that driving Only that’s not what they’re selling us - they say autonomous cars are safer than humans, fewer accidents per mile driven, faster reaction times yadda yadda. I think this implies quality and not respecting speed limits is not something that sounds very high-quality. At least not while they have to share the road with humans.
    - roenxi 6mo ago
      I'm just going to quote myself here: > (a friend of mine died slamming their car into a tree) Autonomous cars can run headlong into concrete walls and still be substantially better drivers than humans. There is no inherent contradiction there at all. They can speed and still be more law-abiding than humans too, humans get pretty casual about speed limits. I don't think you've grappled with just how bad humans are at operating rolling tin cans travelling at speeds evolution has not prepared us to move at. We're really bad at it. Autonomous cars aren't ever going to be perfect, they are merely a better alternative than humans.
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
- charcircuit 6mo ago
  Both statements can be true. Human vs self driving cars is a different classification between good and bad driving. Humans can slam into a wall too.
kalleboo 6mo ago
Elon Musks claims included (exact quotes, these posts are still on X): Jan 10, 2016: In ~2 years, summon should work anywhere connected by land & not blocked by borders, eg you're in LA and the car is in NY Jul 16, 2019: If we make all cars with FSD package self-driving, as planned, any such Tesla should be worth $100k to $200k, as utility increases from ~12 hours/week to ~60 hours/week These aren't moving goalposts by antis, this are the expectations set by Elon Musk himself when advertising his products.
- Teever 6mo ago
  Here's more than a decade of claims from Tesla on self driving vehicles summarized in one handy table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autonomous_Tesla_vehicles_by_Elon_Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...
dawnerd 6mo ago
Those YouTubers are all there to make Tesla look good. It’s a grift. The ones that are honest and show the bad side get kicked out of the Tesla club fast and dogpiled on. Also a school zone is one of the most basic things the car should be able to handle. If it can’t do that, it’s not ready for public use.
- roenxi 6mo ago
  >Also a school zone is one of the most basic things the car should be able to handle. If it can’t do that, it’s not ready for public use. Humans don't always follow the law driving through school zones. And when humans speed through a school zone, the human is definitely driving the car. Are we ready to let humans drive on public roads? The argument has to go into the magnitude of the problem to get anywhere meaningful.
  - stahtops 6mo ago
    We require individual humans to be licensed to drive and can revoke that license as needed.
AlotOfReading 6mo ago
This is a common misconception. People tend to think driving is controlling the steering and pedals, so if FSD does those things it must be driving. It's not. Driving is whatever has ultimate responsibility for the vehicle and its occupants. If a cop pulls you over while FSD is enabled, it's not Tesla who's paying the ticket. If FSD has an issue, you're the driver who has to respond. Think of FSD as a very nice cruise control. You're still driving, even if you aren't touching the wheel.
- pdpi 6mo ago
  Sort of how programming isn't the same as writing code — it also involves a bunch of other thing like all the design and planning work.
- zadikian 6mo ago
  It's a common misconception because the thing is called "full self driving."
  - fouc 6mo ago
    technically it was called "Full Self Driving (BETA)" and then "Full Self Driving (Supervised)"
- charcircuit 6mo ago
  So if the law says that a human in the car has to be responsible then it is impossible for a self driving car to exist. I do not think tying the definition to legal liability is right. I don't see why self driving couldn't just be steering and pedals. It would be pretty limiting but it would be able to drive itself in a circle at least.
  - Retric 6mo ago
    No. The law allows passengers in self driving Taxi not to be responsible. Including Taxi operated by Tesla. Here Tesla makes it clear to people who turn on “Full self driving” the driver must maintain supervision and thus responsibility. As such it’s Tesla’s choice that they aren’t selling self driving cars. It wouldn’t be such a big deal if some random engineer said they’d eventually do X, but when it’s the CEO repeatedly saying the same across many public appearances that’s as binding as a Super Bowl advertisement.
frakkingcylons 6mo ago
See, that's really the best argument for this. It can drive itself the same way I can fly an Airbus A321. You can't sue me because I didn't land the plane "intact".
UltraSane 6mo ago
Tesla FSD won't be level 5 until Tesla has liability for any crashes it causes the way Waymo does.
throw7 6mo ago
When full liability is put on the manufacturer, then we can talk about "cars driving themselves".
- nradov 6mo ago
  Mercedes-Benz accepts full liability when their Drive Pilot autonomous system is active. https://www.mbusa.com/en/drive-pilot https://www.mbusa.com/en/drive-pilot
  - throw7 6mo ago
    I appreciate the link and information, but are you sure about that? I don't see or read anything about liability... And footnote 2 on that page says: 2 DRIVE PILOT is an SAE Level 3 (conditional automated driving) system: the automated driving function takes over certain driving tasks. However, a fallback-ready user is still required. The fallback-ready user must be ready to take control of the vehicle at all times when prompted by the vehicle. Availability and use of DRIVE PILOT on freeways depends on options, compatible wireless networks, countries, states and relevant laws. Service subject to change at any time without notice. Mercedes me connect Terms of Use apply. Please refer to the Operator's Manual for additional instructions and limitations.
    - nradov 6mo ago
      Yes, I'm sure about that. Mercedes-Benz accepts legal liability for collisions when Drive Pilot is active. https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a39481699/what-happens-if-mercedes-drivepilot-causes-a-crash/ https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a39481699/what-happens-if-...
      - throw7 6mo ago
        Thanks for your reply. In good faith, I will give some kudos to mercedes for accepting some liability in specific situations. However, I do not grant them full liability which is what I originally stated. AFAICT from a public search, this is the current 'drive pilot' legal terms: https://www.mbusa.com/en/legal-notices/drive-pilot https://www.mbusa.com/en/legal-notices/drive-pilot Section 5: "...the individual using DRIVE PILOT Subscription Services becomes the fallback-ready user". That is not full liability. Full stop. I will not use drive pilot. Additionally: Section 6: This is a legal arbitration clause. It's a red flag to me as I believe this is a move by the legal system to contractually operate outside of the u.s. constitution. I realize this is more a personal opinion, but, regardless, this will always be a barrier, for me, to what some in industry call "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)".
zadikian 6mo ago
AI never had goalposts, it means programming meant to look like human behavior. Like AI opponents in old video games.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
rootusrootus 6mo ago
It's fairly simple. Tesla says I have to supervise, and they are not liable for anything the car does wrong. It is not full self-driving any more than a 25 40 year old car with cruise control is.
linsomniac 6mo ago
>the cars do drive themselves Those are cars with the "HW4" FSD hardware, which was released in Mar 2023. There were a lot of cars sold with "HW2" (nVidia-based) and HW3 (Tesla silicon). Those cars, apparently cannot be upgraded to HW4 because of physical size differences between the units. HW2 was able to be upgraded to HW3. Those videos you are talking about seeing do not represent the FSD experience for all, or possibly even most, Tesla FSD vehicles in the wild.
rpdillon 6mo ago
By this definition, putting a brick on the accelerator and tying the steering wheel in place is self-driving.
- charcircuit 6mo ago
  That is self driving, but a basic implementation of it. It's like a chess AI that plays random moves. It is able to play chess, but its performance is very limited.

loloquwowndueo 6mo ago

By that logic it’s ok if the car slams itself against a concrete wall - just because it failed to stop in time doesn’t mean it wasn’t driving itself. Self driving cars are supposed to obey the same rules as human drivers.

RajT88 6mo ago
Tesla FSD is vulnerable to RoadRunner and Wile E. Coyote style tricks.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- qingcharles 6mo ago
  Fortunately the ACME products are flawed and subject to their own litigation, see e.g. Coyote vs. ACME (2026).
- iknowstuff 6mo ago
  it's not. that vid was using autopilot, not fsd, and subsequent videos using actual new FSD were fine
  - Marsymars 6mo ago
    > it's not. "Tesla FSD is invulnerable to tricks" is a pretty strong claim.
    - iknowstuff 6mo ago
      So is “Vulnerable to wilecoyote”
roenxi 6mo ago
Well ... yes. By that logic it is the case. It applies to humans too - if a human slams their car into a concrete wall then the human was still driving the car. They did a bad job of it, but they were in fact driving. A car being driven autonomously doesn't imply much about the quality of that driving. They're still going to make bad decisions and have accidents, just like humans do (a friend of mine died slamming their car into a tree). There is probably some minimum where we'd say that it isn't really driving because it can't do anything right, but modern self driving systems are past that.
- loloquwowndueo 6mo ago
  > A car being driven autonomously doesn't imply much about the quality of that driving Only that’s not what they’re selling us - they say autonomous cars are safer than humans, fewer accidents per mile driven, faster reaction times yadda yadda. I think this implies quality and not respecting speed limits is not something that sounds very high-quality. At least not while they have to share the road with humans.
  - roenxi 6mo ago
    I'm just going to quote myself here: > (a friend of mine died slamming their car into a tree) Autonomous cars can run headlong into concrete walls and still be substantially better drivers than humans. There is no inherent contradiction there at all. They can speed and still be more law-abiding than humans too, humans get pretty casual about speed limits. I don't think you've grappled with just how bad humans are at operating rolling tin cans travelling at speeds evolution has not prepared us to move at. We're really bad at it. Autonomous cars aren't ever going to be perfect, they are merely a better alternative than humans.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
charcircuit 6mo ago
Both statements can be true. Human vs self driving cars is a different classification between good and bad driving. Humans can slam into a wall too.

kalleboo 6mo ago

Elon Musks claims included (exact quotes, these posts are still on X): Jan 10, 2016: In ~2 years, summon should work anywhere connected by land & not blocked by borders, eg you're in LA and the car is in NY Jul 16, 2019: If we make all cars with FSD package self-driving, as planned, any such Tesla should be worth $100k to $200k, as utility increases from ~12 hours/week to ~60 hours/week These aren't moving goalposts by antis, this are the expectations set by Elon Musk himself when advertising his products.

Teever 6mo ago
Here's more than a decade of claims from Tesla on self driving vehicles summarized in one handy table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autonomous_Tesla_vehicles_by_Elon_Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...

dawnerd 6mo ago

Those YouTubers are all there to make Tesla look good. It’s a grift. The ones that are honest and show the bad side get kicked out of the Tesla club fast and dogpiled on. Also a school zone is one of the most basic things the car should be able to handle. If it can’t do that, it’s not ready for public use.

roenxi 6mo ago
>Also a school zone is one of the most basic things the car should be able to handle. If it can’t do that, it’s not ready for public use. Humans don't always follow the law driving through school zones. And when humans speed through a school zone, the human is definitely driving the car. Are we ready to let humans drive on public roads? The argument has to go into the magnitude of the problem to get anywhere meaningful.
- stahtops 6mo ago
  We require individual humans to be licensed to drive and can revoke that license as needed.

AlotOfReading 6mo ago

This is a common misconception. People tend to think driving is controlling the steering and pedals, so if FSD does those things it must be driving. It's not. Driving is whatever has ultimate responsibility for the vehicle and its occupants. If a cop pulls you over while FSD is enabled, it's not Tesla who's paying the ticket. If FSD has an issue, you're the driver who has to respond. Think of FSD as a very nice cruise control. You're still driving, even if you aren't touching the wheel.

pdpi 6mo ago
Sort of how programming isn't the same as writing code — it also involves a bunch of other thing like all the design and planning work.
zadikian 6mo ago
It's a common misconception because the thing is called "full self driving."
- fouc 6mo ago
  technically it was called "Full Self Driving (BETA)" and then "Full Self Driving (Supervised)"
charcircuit 6mo ago
So if the law says that a human in the car has to be responsible then it is impossible for a self driving car to exist. I do not think tying the definition to legal liability is right. I don't see why self driving couldn't just be steering and pedals. It would be pretty limiting but it would be able to drive itself in a circle at least.
- Retric 6mo ago
  No. The law allows passengers in self driving Taxi not to be responsible. Including Taxi operated by Tesla. Here Tesla makes it clear to people who turn on “Full self driving” the driver must maintain supervision and thus responsibility. As such it’s Tesla’s choice that they aren’t selling self driving cars. It wouldn’t be such a big deal if some random engineer said they’d eventually do X, but when it’s the CEO repeatedly saying the same across many public appearances that’s as binding as a Super Bowl advertisement.

frakkingcylons 6mo ago

See, that's really the best argument for this. It can drive itself the same way I can fly an Airbus A321. You can't sue me because I didn't land the plane "intact".

UltraSane 6mo ago

Tesla FSD won't be level 5 until Tesla has liability for any crashes it causes the way Waymo does.

throw7 6mo ago

When full liability is put on the manufacturer, then we can talk about "cars driving themselves".

nradov 6mo ago
Mercedes-Benz accepts full liability when their Drive Pilot autonomous system is active. https://www.mbusa.com/en/drive-pilot https://www.mbusa.com/en/drive-pilot
- throw7 6mo ago
  I appreciate the link and information, but are you sure about that? I don't see or read anything about liability... And footnote 2 on that page says: 2 DRIVE PILOT is an SAE Level 3 (conditional automated driving) system: the automated driving function takes over certain driving tasks. However, a fallback-ready user is still required. The fallback-ready user must be ready to take control of the vehicle at all times when prompted by the vehicle. Availability and use of DRIVE PILOT on freeways depends on options, compatible wireless networks, countries, states and relevant laws. Service subject to change at any time without notice. Mercedes me connect Terms of Use apply. Please refer to the Operator's Manual for additional instructions and limitations.
  - nradov 6mo ago
    Yes, I'm sure about that. Mercedes-Benz accepts legal liability for collisions when Drive Pilot is active. https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a39481699/what-happens-if-mercedes-drivepilot-causes-a-crash/ https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a39481699/what-happens-if-...
    - throw7 6mo ago
      Thanks for your reply. In good faith, I will give some kudos to mercedes for accepting some liability in specific situations. However, I do not grant them full liability which is what I originally stated. AFAICT from a public search, this is the current 'drive pilot' legal terms: https://www.mbusa.com/en/legal-notices/drive-pilot https://www.mbusa.com/en/legal-notices/drive-pilot Section 5: "...the individual using DRIVE PILOT Subscription Services becomes the fallback-ready user". That is not full liability. Full stop. I will not use drive pilot. Additionally: Section 6: This is a legal arbitration clause. It's a red flag to me as I believe this is a move by the legal system to contractually operate outside of the u.s. constitution. I realize this is more a personal opinion, but, regardless, this will always be a barrier, for me, to what some in industry call "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)".

zadikian 6mo ago

AI never had goalposts, it means programming meant to look like human behavior. Like AI opponents in old video games.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

rootusrootus 6mo ago

It's fairly simple. Tesla says I have to supervise, and they are not liable for anything the car does wrong. It is not full self-driving any more than a 25 40 year old car with cruise control is.

linsomniac 6mo ago

>the cars do drive themselves Those are cars with the "HW4" FSD hardware, which was released in Mar 2023. There were a lot of cars sold with "HW2" (nVidia-based) and HW3 (Tesla silicon). Those cars, apparently cannot be upgraded to HW4 because of physical size differences between the units. HW2 was able to be upgraded to HW3. Those videos you are talking about seeing do not represent the FSD experience for all, or possibly even most, Tesla FSD vehicles in the wild.

rpdillon 6mo ago

By this definition, putting a brick on the accelerator and tying the steering wheel in place is self-driving.

charcircuit 6mo ago
That is self driving, but a basic implementation of it. It's like a chess AI that plays random moves. It is able to play chess, but its performance is very limited.