Tesla is ordered to turn over Autopilot data to a federal safety agency
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
12 crashes into vehicles with flashing lights on them doesn't sound like great success from Autopilot, gonna be honest.
I don't disagree with the idea of having a gradient to measure our progress up to full autonomy, but I haven't seen much to say that we should deploy the intermediate stages. Until autonomy can be reasonably guaranteed at at least human levels of safety under the assumption of no human control, it really shouldn't be deployed. "But the human had 673 milliseconds to take control and avert the accident! It's their fault!" is simply not a reasonable defense.
(There's an argument that if you take away the routine parts of driving, humans won't be able to deal with anomalous situations, but that's a different argument than the attentiveness one.)
(And, to be clear, I'm not asking for perfect safety, I'm asking for "human or better", and also understand that there may be some interesting fuzziness near the border where the two have different strengths and weakenesses but come out statistically the same. However, I don't feel like we're there yet.)
Yeah, and that's how it's going to be with car autopilots. Which is why it pisses me off that people want to stop progress on it.
Car AP is way harder than plane AP and saying "But planes can do it, why is Tesla so bad at this" is facetious.
Airplane autopilots, depending on generation, are full touch. The pilot programs the waypoints. The pilot is alerted and agrees to every course correction and change.
Autopilot encourages people to not pay as much attention while driving, until a critical situation comes up at which point they're expected to be fully in control. That's a design flaw that isn't fixed with a liability shifting "Agree" button.
If you do this three times in a drive you have to power off and on the car again to be able to use autopilot again.
I've done maybe 40.000 km on autopilot and it's very aggressive compared to my other car (ioniq electric) when it comes to attention.
The fact that some people purposely defeat this system with weights on the wheel is another matter.
But saying that tesla encourages you to not paying attention is not correct.
All the articles with industry analysts insisting that other driver monitoring systems are nearly perfect have sometimes blinded me to that fact.
A lot of people don't like any of these systems for a lot of the same reasons that people didn't like basic cruise control in the early days.
I'm sorry, but how can you form an opinion so quickly? 12 crashes out of what? Any number? 12 crashes out of 10000000 scenarios sound like a pretty good record, while 12 crashes out of 15 scenarios indeed doesn't sound like a great success.
But what information do you have that the rest of us doesn't?
Instead of that, we got robots that are apparently unable to avoid crashing into large vehicles with flashing lights. Sometimes.
As usual, the future never ceases to disappoint me.
I believe you're thinking of terminators, not automated drivers:
https://quotegeek.com/quotes-from-movies/the-terminator/1136...
Though the "will not stop, ever...", even for an emergency vehicle, might be relevant.
It doesn't really matter. They're stationary objects; there's absolutely no reason, good or bad, for the algorithm to determine that the correct trajectory change is into the stationary object.
Humans crash into stationary objects because they're lacking attention almost 100% of the time, whether it's because they're half asleep, drunk, texting, or distracted by just about anything else. Autopilot shouldn't have this issue, so there's no reason for it to fail to recognize the obstacles unless it's been poorly trained, and there's absolutely no reason for it to recognize an obstacle as a valid path or destination.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/06/why-emergency-braking-s...
(thanks for the link correction)
You claim that you have some super duper AI but it can't detect a truck or a wall from a shadow or bag , then your AI is stupid and buy some better sensors and improve your AI.
Well you don't ask for much
Most systems are self contained modules with low power micro-controllers that can emit basic warning and alert data onto the CAN BUS. Tesla's is actually taking the input from it's sensors and attempting to do more in-depth analysis and actually produce a 3D space.
The fact that they're still suffering from the same problem as other manufacturers shouldn't be an admonishment of their technology or attempts unless or until it's proven that their approach is fundamentally worse.
If their approach fundamentally means they decided to work around mapping their surroundings in 3D correctly, as the GP suggested, there is a strong reason to admonish.
Sure some AI gurus will claim that humans can detect this objects only with 2 eyes but they forget to mention that behind those 2 eyes is a brain an actual intelligence that is aware of the world and it's place in the world. So if you can't create an actual intelligence then at least put the effort in feeding correct data into your AI and remove the line of code "if static object ignore because too hard to detect if is a truck or a shadow/paper bag/sign"
Tesla should also be prohibited from pushing updates. When the software is updated, the code should be tested for at least X thousand miles and X months before a new version may be pushed. Letting an authority do the pushing avoids the temptation of manufacturers to push updates prematurely. It also solves the problem of unexpected changes for the user at random times.
If safety issues are detected, the automobile (or at least the autopilot) should be disabled until the code has been fixed and fully tested.
A self driving system needs to have a 3d understanding of it's environment. It's not acceptable to crash into paintings by Wile E. Coyote.
What systems are you referring to? Lidar and radar systems can't reliably detect stationary objects as hazards, because most of the world is stationary and consequently gets filtered out.
The lidar/radar detects the objects the AI should label them and decide, if it can't do it then throw more video cards at it and more training or find some competent people that could use more deterministic code to reduce the complexity before the AI attempts to run.
Though the Google car seems to have strong enough hardware to keep track of many vehicles and objects at a big enough distance to not be surprised if something appears or disappears for a frame.
Not sure what people want for a sensor, to detect and label the objects for you? or calculate velocities and predict the future? That seems to be the software developers job but you might need competent people and not throwing big data into a black box and retrain until it mostly works.
https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/
How a code that decides what to ignore or not is a sensor issue? Sensors tell you that there is something in front, sure maybe is a sudden thing and there is no velocity/acceleration vector for a few moments but the object is detected ...the software DECIDES what to ignore.
The example where a car changes slane and the code ignores any static object in front of that car seems a clear case of a crash waiting to happen, the car in front might change the lane to avoid something. (and the fact that some other tech that is honestly labeled lane assist has this issue does not excuse a self claimed autopilot to have same flaws."
Let me summarize and let me know where I am wrong:
"Because the software is bad and it triggers too many false positives the coders added a "clever" hack , we ignore most static objects."
I guess "Sensor Module" would be a more accurate description.
Most automotive systems are designed as a series of modules that function independently but jointly form a system. They either broadcast or consume messages over the CAN BUS.
The Volvo V60 for example has a Forward Sensor Module, the radar, which outputs a handful parameters like Primary Target Range, Voltage, and Automatic Alignment Offset. It's the responsibility of other body modules to consume that data. The Closing Velocity Module might then broadcast Acceleration related messages which intern would be picked up by the Adaptive Cruise Control Module. Or it might broadcast Collision Warning Messages which the Stereo Module reads and responds by blaring a warning noise out the speakers and also the Brake Control Module receives and applies the brakes.
A autonomous driving system which can't detect stationary obstacles is not an autonomous driving system: It's a murder machine.
If they can't do this, they shouldn't operate, full stop.
There's no reason to kill autonomous driving just because gen 1 - 50 isn't perfect but is an improvement on current driving methodology.
Giving a one-line sentence of what happened disregards other variables such as, lighting conditions, where the stationary object was (Over a hill, round a sharp bend, etc.), how much stopping distance was there. A lot of Tesla hate is purposefully done from EV haters & Musk haters. No one can argue that there isn't an establishment who wants to tear down and prevent Tesla & Musk from succeeding. Teslas will catch on fire (like other cars do), Teslas will crash (like other cars do), Auto-pilot will fail (while also being overall an improvement on driving safety).
We can't assume the stationary object was 300 feet away on a straightaway in a perfect visibility conditions, we have to judge whether a human would've performed worse and whether the same cases are occurring over and over. 12 crashes over a few months is a pretty tiny fraction when there are probably more than 12 humans crashing into stationary objects every hour.
>> The horrible truth is that if autonomous driving can save 1+ life, it's better than what we have now so we should keep it and accept that crashes will occur >>
As that '1 life' saved may be countered by a number of lives lost due to the system that might otherwise have survived.
This is not true at all and we have much higher standards than this. This is like saying if a vaccine cures Covid but manages to kill people at a rate slightly less than Covid, we should embrace it.
So I take it you would be fine with the nightmare version of Apple's phone scanner, continuously scanning your devices for thoughtcrime? After all, "If it saves just one child..."
Any time I hear emotional appeals that ignore the cost side of the equation, I look for a financial motive.
The problem with the Apple system is significant downsides that are completely separate from CSAM.
This argument ignores the reality of driving: by being a competent, attentive, careful driver you can avoid many classes of accident. Crashes are all about fault, and as a safe driver you can avoid most at-fault accidents. You get to avoid all the self-inflicted damage of drunk/incapacitated driving, unsafe driving for weather conditions, extreme speeding / reckless driving, etc. You still have to deal with the externalities of those, but some fraction of the time you can notice and anticipate these people on the road and stay away. Not always of course, so that still leaves some number of deaths per mile, but I'd bet that threshold is way lower than the "save one life" bar. So if you're a good driver, autonomous cars at the "current death rate" safety bar would make you less safe.
What you get by ignoring this and using the current death rate as a bar is a "transfer of deaths": you take all the deaths that were the fault of the driver (driver dies due to being drunk/high, very reckless driving, etc) and transfer them to random innocent people who were not at fault.
It’s funny you use the word reality since this is completely at odds with driving in America. You’re comparing an idealized world of competent drivers to the real world where there are basically no barriers to getting a license and everyone is on their phone behind the wheel. Unless you advocate for stricter licensing and more police enforcement against inattentive driving with equal vigor, this line of reasoning doesn’t hold.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the 12 incidents and the Tesla Models involved. Were the incidents involving radar/vision blended, or vision only vehicles or both?
If the incidents only involved older vehicles that were radar equipped, that would be good PR for the vision only system. If the incidents were in vision only systems, it would be bad. I suspect it'll probably be a little of both.
Are you saying it doesn't matter how often it happens? I'd be a lot more worried about things if something happens always compared to it happening in some cases. Sure, stationary objects should be driven into, I agree. But if this only happens 1 time over the course of 10 years, I'd be a lot more lenient than if it happens once per week, no matter if the reason is "good or bad" (not sure what that means?)
These are situations where failure is not suppose to happen when the driver is paying attention. Given that the auto-pilot is always paying attention when operational, this becomes an unacceptable failure mode because it failed in the most rudimentary way - failure to perceive stationary obstacles and a display of complete lack of situational awareness.
For emergency responders on highways, there are means to reduce the risk of additional collisions by increasing visibility to oncoming drivers (markers, lights, etc.). If the auto-pilot is not able to perceive these even when paying attention, we do have a problem.
I guess this lies somewhere between these extremes, but wouldn’t know.
We also don’t know how many of these accidents were prevented by attentive drivers.
The fact that AI can give no easily understood excuses, and improvements to the algorithms is a trade secret means that any fear cannot be abated, aside from outright banning of AI driving.
I saw a number of Tesla vehicles on the road as well, each passing these same emergency vehicles, but not always in the same lane.
By this point, there must be 1M+ incidents of Tesla vehicles passing roadside emergency vehicles in an adjacent lane.
12 crashes is 12 crashes too many, statistically speaking, but it's also a tiny tiny percentage of the total number of cases.
IMO, it is good that there is federal investigation into this. My main concern is that is seems our government agencies at large are not very good when it comes to properly understanding anything technology related, or making relevant decisions/rulings/etc. on these kinds of things.
> seems our government agencies at large are not very good when it comes to properly understanding anything technology related, or making relevant decisions/rulings/etc. on these kinds of things.
Not sure how you think it's good then.
How do you know all of them were on autopilot?
>12 crashes is 12 crashes too many, statistically speaking, but it's also a tiny tiny percentage of the total number of cases.
It's also 12 more than any normal attentive human has gotten into, and an average attentive human driver is the absolute floor for self-driving on public roads unless Tesla is going to go to the lengths GM has to ensure the person behind the wheel is remaining attentive.
>IMO, it is good that there is federal investigation into this. My main concern is that is seems our government agencies at large are not very good when it comes to properly understanding anything technology related, or making relevant decisions/rulings/etc. on these kinds of things.
I think they're good at understanding if Tesla loses complete public confidence in self driving that is a net-loss for humanity and technology, as well as a prime source of political shitstorm when people ask why something wasn't done sooner.
Are you comparing a fleet of cars driving millions of miles to the performance of one ostensibly good driver? Ok, I guess we’ll need perfect systems, see you after the heat death of the universe.
It's about the unknown unknowns. If you have Teslas slamming into stopped emergency vehicles with their lights on, and you don't know why, what else don't we know about their ability to perceive and reason about the world that they're navigating in?
Humans do a lot of dumb, irresponsible things on the road, but this is not one of them.
This cop[1] tells a lady not to stand between the vehicles because she will get killed if his patrol car gets hit, and seconds later it happens and he says "just like that".
>this is not one of them.
Yes[2], this[3] is[4] one[5] of[6] them[7].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZDIwaRWCl0
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97D3llj0KSQ
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV5FrWTATDY
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loex5U9zD0s
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khz9hlpvhko
Just like anything else, it may not be common (or it may be 'uncommon') but, to say that it never happens, is plainly, clearly and objectively false.
That said, I suspect there is some systematic issue with Tesla's system and flashing lights, and I bet they are working like demons to identify and fix it already.
The authorities are simply viewing Tesla's credibility as undermined. They ask themselves, if it can't do this, how can it get anything right, or there must be many more flaws.
The humans do not like to pass over control to machines unless the machines do it clearly better.
And in this case, the authority does not want to have their credibility shot by looking away from the Tesla issue, it cannot be pushed under the metaphorical carpet anymore, there is a bulge under the carpet visible to anyone who wants to see.
Can you clarify this please? Are you asserting that prior to the 12 Tesla incidents, there weren't any crashes into stationary emergency vehicles?
>I'm not going to trust a system that isn't as good as a normal attentive driver.
As I understand it, we're not expected to trust the current incarnation of Tesla Autopilot. We're supposed to be ready to intervene in case it screws up.
I'd be interested to know how long the drivers of the 12 Teslas in these accidents had to intervene but didn't (how long was it obvious Autopilot had screwed up before the impact).
So if data show that people keep failing at it we have to take a look and decide that it's not a good system, not that the people are at fault.
Even if the accidents a Tesla does get into are ones that a normal attentive driver wouldn't get into, if it avoids just as many accidents that a normal attentive driver would get into isn't that enough?
A lot of people probably feel the same.
But... no one is forcing anyone to use this system. They elect to. Thus this is the wrong question, but rather if drivers should be given the option to use the system.
If anything it might be reasonable to infer that poor drivers are more likely to use this system, so the standard could plausibly be below that of an average driver while still improving overall safety.
It’s not just autopilot.
I don't, but statistically speaking, some of them likely were.
Tesla has shipped about 1.6M units globally, with most of those in the US. Let conservatively estimate half of those stayed in the US, and half of that half have used autopilot frequently enough for a high degree of opportunity of these kinds of crashes. That is still 250,000 vehicles. 12 of those being involved in crashes is a pretty low number, and we also do not know how many scenarios they avoided that a human might have missed.
> It's also 12 more than any normal attentive human has gotten into
What is your definition of "normal attentive human"? There are tons of studies showing how humans suck at long-term tasks that are repetitive or non-engaging (like highway driving). People get distracted all the time while driving and cause accidents. Sure an "attentive" human would not run into a police vehicle, but there are not enough of those on the road most days.
> 12 crashes is 12 crashes too many, statistically speaking, but it's also a tiny tiny percentage of the total number of cases.
That perspective is little more than spin. Most serious flaws are like that.
Any failure that isn't a "tiny tiny percentage of the total number of cases" is pretty serious. If it was even a small percentage (say 0.01%), Tesla autopilot would be banned from the road, and maybe Elon Musk would go to jail (or at least Tesla would probably get bankrupted) for releasing such a hazardous product.
I have been using autopilot in Nissan. If the car were to crash into an ambulance light going off I would not be able to predict it and stop it from happening quickly enough. I just have a whole lot of trust in some basic things the car does.
And this is one of those cases where they should have been able to get this right after the first crash but they didn’t and now the feds have to get involved. A lesson on why we can’t have nice things.
Hopefully the NHTSA is also going to investigate the many other cars with traffic aware cruise control, which have the same problem with stationary vehicles.
I was driving my Rav4 with TACC enabled, and it would have crashed into a column of stopped cars if I hadn't noticed in time and intervened.
What's your denominator? Is this per year or per kilometre driven with TACC active?
> 12 crashes into vehicles with flashing lights on them doesn't sound like great success from Autopilot, gonna be honest.
It's really surprising what people will put up with. IIRC, recently "autopilot" had some regressions in the situations it could handle, and Elon Musk tweeted something to the effect of "Yeah, this version sucks since we're retraining all our NNs."
Like how did something that half-baked ever make it to production in a safety critical system?
They might find that Tesla did no wrong here, further enabling Tesla to get away with this. But this looks a lot like they want to regulate the feature a bit more. If self regulation via companies and humans does not work, the government will step in.
Curious to see the outcome, they haven't ordered the immediate disablement of the feature, they might have a neutral view.
I'm not sure that's fixable on the human end.
We have all sorts of car / road safety features because humans are bad at driving.
We can't reprogram the humans, can change the environment they operate in.
Fundamentally any life form has a slower reaction when they have to notice an issue and start to take motor control. Versus already being in control and simply not causing the issue.
They are not just "an EV company" they are making a guidance system for thousands of high speed metal death machines. They BETTER consult some psychologists. This is a really bizarre thing to say.
1. You are trying to shift blame away from Tesla and onto the drivers
2. Tesla is doing the same thing by pretending not to understand the brains of carbon based life forms, hoping most people accept it on face value and don't think too hard.
Placing the issue on individual psychology: "why did this guy shoot his own head on purpose, why did this guy drive drunk"
instead of on fundamental human psychology: "oh surely the drivers will simply take over control instantly and without warning after staring straight and doing nothing for 2 hours"
...is the whole problem. They need to consult psychologists instead of crying that they aren't responsible for their own system design.
So it's entirely Tesla's fault. They aren't making cars for Lt. Commander Data. They're making cars for human beings
I suspect insurance would be quite expensive.
I believe we would if the gun design meant it could fire when it wasn't supposed to or if random batches of the alcohol contained a toxic chemical but was label warning the consumer that it was up to them to figure out if the bottle they want to consume was safe.
There's a big difference between users "do[ing] something stupid" and manufacturers "making something that puts unreasonable demands on the user to ensure safety."
We do though.
gun manufacturers sell firearms that need ~10lbs force to shoot (~2x normal) to law enforcement so keep accidental discharges down.
alcohol companies maybe but there are "Alcohol Server Liability Laws" where a bar/etc can be held liable for damages caused by somebody who got drunk at their bar/etc.
The only reason they haven't faced that is because it's completely devestating to the technology they're trying to market.
Exactly, there were some pretty good 99% Invisible podcasts on that topic:
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magen...
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/johnnycab-automation-...
I think the word you're looking for is "dishonest."
Of course, at the same time the car should not play police; if someone is caught doing that, their license should be taken away from them.
I do think that this 'auto pilot ... but you have to manage it' system is not workable for most humans. Paying attention when you sorta don't have to ... is just not paying attention for most people.
It's a space I don't think we manage well outside of say a real pilot in a plane trained to do his thing (and there's actually a lot of cases with trained airline pilots losing situational awareness and auto pilot does the wrong thing and the pilots don't notice soon enough / auto pilot makes bad choices for a surprisingly long time before anyone notices).
I think this might be a space where it is all or nothing auto pilot wise.
Ultimately a human problem.
Sometimes, "coming soon" is a great answer, vagueness is a powerful tool to help with time demands of clients.
This would have saved several lives, untold injuries, and millions in damages. It would have been disastrous for Elon's wealth and the market cap of Tesla, but then we could at least pretend there's still rule of law in the US.
Thankfully other jurisdictions have actual regulators and are telling Tesla that you cannot use fraudulent names, but who knows how much longer it will take for the US to join the rest of the world in this.
Check out how long it took for even simple safety features to make it into all cars.
> Then the waste majority of cars simply wouldn't come with lane assist. Deploying lidar on such scale is simply not practical at the moment.
IMHO, lane assist isn't "self driving" any more than cruise control is.
I think you get into self driving territory when the car makes lane changes or turns at intersections.
Their way of thought is simply that if the software can't deal with what is trivial for humans, maybe a recall or better look is in order. I know, this is not trivial for software, it just looks to not technical people like something that should never happen, and if it does , they loose all the trust in it. Obviously, there are many bright engineers working at Tesla, not sure how this was deployed and how this slipped QA repeatedly.
This, the authority asks Tesla, before the authority has to answer to the voters , congress and media shows.
If it is really impossible for people to pay attention without their hands on the wheel at all the time then all lane keeping must be abolished or a standard needs to be established what 'paying attention' means.
Crashing into emergency vehicles happens often even without lane keeping system as well, so its a univeral problem when you have big stationary objects standing around on driving lanes.
What do people on HN actually want or expect in terms or regulation?
Here are some suggestions:
- Only allow any kind of lane keeping if a comprehensive testing that they can detect any obstetrical of any kind and have emergency breaking. This of course would simply mean less such system would be deployed as most companies don't have practical scalable solution for this as of yet.
- Only allow any kind of lane keeping if a comprehensive driver monitoring system is implemented that makes sure driver is alert. Additionally you could require wheel touches every so often in addition to that, if 'hands free' driving should not be allowed.
Tesla is in a good spot here, they have the internal cameras and already have a driver monitoring system yet despite that they have not allowed hands free driving.
Tesla new Vision Autopilot or the more extensive FSD stack (that will do highway driving with v10) should solve the stationary object problem.
I'm sure that if there was any kind of regulation, Tesla would simply comply and move on. In the worst case if regulation would somehow insist on having things named in a specific way, Tesla would just rename their features.
However the point here seems to be non of this is technological problem with Tesla, is simply a situation with no regulation and so every manufacturer picks their own solution. Tesla is the most prominent and most talked about so they are the whipping boy of anybody that wants more regulation.
probably this. it's a nice feature but it lulls you into a false sense of security and just doesn't seem to mesh well with human nature. It works well enough most of the time that people start trusting it too much over time
I'm also not sure how to verify that.
It would be nice if the investigation of these incidents resulted in an open standard for analysis and quality control of self-driving systems.
It may be easier to just ask for and release everything. In the name of safety, of course.
But there are 4500 crashes every year, and that's only including ambulances (https://www.ems.gov/pdf/GroundAmbulanceCrashesPresentation.p... pg 22). So why is Tesla being investigated for being involved in 0.25% of these crashes when they made up 3% of car sales in 2020?
Also, radar ignores stationary objects on any car. Why is only Tesla being investigated when this exact same flaw exists in every other car manufacturer that uses radar based cruise control?
I think every crash, where an investigation could prevent another crash in the future, should be investigated.
Shouldn't Tesla "celebrate their mistakes" (yes, morbid, sorry) and see this as an opportunity to improve their product?
(1) Will they take relative risk into account? If the car sometimes crashes but less often than humans, will that be sufficient, or considered a flaw because it's not perfect and regulators hate looking bad?
(2) Will they take progress into account? If the car drives worse than humans but its accident rate drops 10% per year, then after some number of years we'll accumulate fewer total accidents than if we hadn't allowed progress to continue. That's important because progress won't continue without lots of cars on the road using Autopilot and FSD betas.
Go read about what "whataboutism" is and where it came from. It is a rhetorical technique where you deflect criticism by asserting that the group you are being criticized by is hypocritical because they do the same thing they are accusing you of doing.
There is no implication of hypocrisy here, nor could there be since the NHTSA doesn't make cars...
Instead this is a comment asking a legitimate question about the basis for the investigation given the overall rates of occurence for the incident in question. Other repliers attempted to answer this question, you decided to try to shut down discussion by mis-applying a rhetorical label.
IMO, they are wrong and this will likely lead to guidance for all automakers, including Tesla. I doubt anything that comes out of this will be a problem for Tesla, if anything it might end up being harder for the others.
NHTSA is pretty reasonable most of the time.
How does the proportion of sales in one year have anything to do with the proportion of crashes that involve cars on the road which were purchased at any time? Furthermore, this is Teslas on autopilot mode--not Teslas in manual driving mode
> How does the proportion of sales in one year have anything to do with the proportion of crashes that involve cars on the road which were purchased at any time? Furthermore, this is Teslas on autopilot mode--not Teslas in manual driving mode
Also, a faulty design is a faulty design, regardless of the proportion of total accidents it causes. All faulty designs should be investigated. The theoretical existence of a "faultier" design isn't a get out of jail for all other designs.
Unfortunately, Tesla has a lot of apologists whose main concern seems to defend it for all criticism, even if the arguments required to do that are specious and unreasonable.
And Tesla also doesn't call it 'full self driving autopilot'. They simply call it Autopilot.