As of the last year or so, I don't even have to touch the steering wheel anymore!
Like, it's OK to shout and scream about LIDAR and supervision and disengagement and all. But... it still drives itself! Really well.
But when you incorporate that tech into a fleet doing 100k residential miles a week with no supervisor, your mowing down 12 kids a month.
There are no real numbers, because there are no real self-driving Teslas.
Nonetheless, our cars drive us around anyway. Neither they, nor us, actually care about hypothetical steamrollered kids.
Most people using FSD don't come close to the mileage needed to get an idea of the safety level needed. If a Tesla robotaxi kills a kid, Tesla is done, and there won't be a coming back.
So Tesla actually needs millions of miles without critical intervention before they can confidently let these things en masse out on the streets.
A whole tesla fanboy meetup collectively will not have enough FSD miles to see something like that, but a robotaxi fleet will encounter it within a year.
So... agreed. I think that sounds like it's in the right ballpark.
Here's the thing though: your whole argument (sort of a para-freakout, really) hinges on this evidence not existing.
It's true that citing numbers from supervised cars isn't the same thing. It's not true to argue that it not being the same thing is (0) not at least a somewhat reasonable proxy for the evidence you want to see, (1) evidence that it doesn't or can't exist, (2) evidence for the opposite case (you seem to be claiming that the fact that it's supervised means that it must be), and in particular (3) evidence for suppression of contrary evidence, as some of your more conspiracy-leaning comments seem to imply.
Isn't the Occam's explanation here that, yeah, the car looks pretty damn safe as shown by billions of miles of travel? Why must you be going to the mattresses to argue against something that seems pretty common sense to me?
> It's not true to argue that it not being the same thing is (0) not at least a somewhat reasonable proxy for the evidence you want to see, (1) evidence that it doesn't or can't exist, (2) evidence for the opposite case (you seem to be claiming that the fact that it's supervised means that it must be), and in particular (3) evidence for suppression of contrary evidence, as some of your more conspiracy-leaning comments seem to imply.
Actually, (0) is true. Numbers from supervised FSD are not a reasonable proxy for unsupervised FSD, especially if accidents may be occurring immediately after FSD disengages.
(1) is also true, because if the evidence did exist, then Tesla would have already have publicized it.
(2) is also true, because if Tesla thought they could employ unsupervised cars like Waymo, then they would have already have done that.
As for (3), if Tesla had a reputation for transparency & honesty, then they could have provided additional data on accidents to show that accidents are not occurring right after FSD disengages at significant rates.
Is that legal where you live?
I think the fanboys self select for above-average risk tolerance / want their toy to succeed.
I recall years ago when I still had a Tesla and frequented forums, often after every FSD/Autopilot release the boosters would declares "this is it, its finally great and I barely need to intervene". However almost as often, they would quietly concede that their girlfriend/wife (cuz it was always dudes pumping the car) refuses to ride with them when the use it due to the ride quality, lol.
As an admitted FSD fanboy, I think this is correct. You know within a couple of days (or as some have mentioned, one drive) your comfort level with the technology. My wife has no patience for even a single aberration, I'm comfortable with the occasional hitch or wrong lane choice. On the highway or going home from a night out however, she's more amenable to the robot driving.
I don't have an investment (monthly subscriber), I've driven with it for years, and I am everyday impressed.
The time after that (three years ago?) it really could not deal with traffic control features in intersections.
Last year it drove itself happily along the Tesla shop’s recommended route, went several miles including freeway driving, flawlessly. And then, on the way back, it tried to get back on the freeway by turning left from a lane that was clearly and unambiguously not the left turn lane, with a green light (but not a left arrow), and would have gotten T-boned by an oncoming car if I had not taken over.
So I rank it as “not ready”.
Also, the mere existence of Mad Max mode makes it very hard to respect FSD.
What's the usefulness of this if you still have to pay attention at all times?
Nobody can be told what FSD is. You have to see it for yourself.
I find it very similar to operating an airplane with a reliable autopilot. The GFC-700 is super good at what it does. But it is still on me to monitor what it is doing, while at the same time significantly reducing my workload.