"Following Bernal’s dismissal, Tesla also cut off his access to the FSD Beta system in the vehicle he personally owns, a 2021 Tesla Model 3, despite having no safety “strikes” in the software."
This shows that you don't own a Tesla, it owns you. What was Musk saying again about the freezing of the bank accounts of the Canadian truckers?
This statement is misleading as is evident by the top replies.
He, as many Tesla employees do, got FSD for free from Tesla. He still owns the free FSD after being fired, which as it being an employee perk already seems strange to me.
FSD beta is a closed beta only for people in the top ~1% safety scores and can be revoked for any reason (as has been done for reckless drivers). I assume another Tesla tester perk (he was employed as an FSD tester after all) is getting into the beta program regardless of your safety score. Revoking that employee-privilege after firing is not taking something he owns.
AFAIK Tesla has never taken unlocked addons such as FSD away from cars that were paid for.
Only when that car was purchased back by Tesla. Private or third party sales transfer the FSD license to the new owner.
There was a highly publicized case where they got this wrong. Tesla sold the car at auction to a dealer with FSD still active, then disabled it later after the sale. They reversed this and as far as I know it is not the norm.
Stop spreading FUD. This isn't happening, there was a case that was overblown and rectified. This just doesn't happen. FSD goes with the car on private sales.
Overblown? If you buy something and the seller sends you the wrong item you have the legal right to keep it. In a normal world if that seller steals back that item, he is guilty of theft. It doesn't matter if he "rectified" the issue.
Note: Renault's future is a bit dubious, because they had to break up with Nissan, and the merger with FCA failed, so they're mostly going at it alone, and they're IMHO too small for that. However, they already have a few EV models, including the most popular EV in Europe for a few years ( Zoe), so maybe they're not that badly placed, and in any case the French government is unlikely to let them fail.
As a French, I find this quite funny because Renault tried for years not to sell their batteries but lease them (Zoe's mostly, which was the most sold EV in Europe for quite some time).
Tesla never offered the rental option for their batteries b/c they trusted their quality and reliability (Renault's batteries were and are quite subpar).
They are not doing well, but neither could afford a split at this moment, although Carlos Ghosn case is a big issue in their relationship.
The split is not realistic to happen in the next few years, but some type of restructuring where Nissan would get more control/independence is likely.
Not sure where the data came from in the top comment, but also Renault didn't have any talks with Stellantis AFAIK, and not sure such merger would be approved atm.
"In early 2019, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) sought a merger with French automaker Renault, and reached a provisional agreement with the company. However, the behaviour of the French government during negotiations led to the abandonment of the deal; The Economist reported that "for FCA this portended future interference." Nissan also had various concerns of the impact of the proposal on its alliance with Renault."
I meant before Stellantis happened, FCA were desperate for a merger with someone and it seems that their first choice was Renault, not PSA. ( Funnily PSA's boss, and the guy running Stellantis now, was at a high level at Renault-Nissan under Ghosn, but was pushed out). Check out the sibling comment for more details
Not sure if you're joking but the Lada Niva Taiga sells quite well in the Austrian countryside where you want a car to beat through the mud and snow. The most modern feature on it is probably electric windows.
Pretty excellent cars, and a no-brainer if your back has ever even hinted it might be sore (the seats are a particular highlight).
As far as I know, there's no feature that they will remotely disable, though since the car can connect to the internet for various things (sometimes using your phone, sometimes with its own modem, depending on trim) it could in theory happen.
However, a lot of the servicing needs VIDA, which is an always-online subscription thing that communicates live with the mothership, and DICE, some proprietary hardware dongle, so it's not easy to do much to it other than the most cursory maintenance if it needs the computer.
Also the service manuals are for a car since 2014, they're in VIDA too and need a subscription (before that there's a hacked version you can use, but it's still a pain).
almost all of them? I think Tesla is the only manufacturer actually cutting off features like this, no? I own a Kia EV and it’s the same old car experience.
Some have announced potential features like paying for remote start, but they’ve all walked it back due to negative feedback afaik
Ford disabled the MyFordMobile app in Fusion Energi and C-Max Energi vehicles because they were using old 3G modems as late as 2021 and AT&T decommed 3G in February. They had customers go into dealers to replace the modem at their own cost. MyFordMobile was a subscription-based app, though some owners had very long trial periods.
Tesla Norway fitted a 4G modem in my 2015 Model S unasked and free when the Norwegian telecoms providers started decommissioning 3G. They just tacked it on to the work order when I took the car in for some unrelated work.
Right. Tesla service has been good for a lot of people. I’ll take this while the hacker news Luddites try to find some euro car with manual windows they can “own”
Why are you hostile to the idea of owning what you paid for, and being against the never stopping train of companies who want to extract rent from you?
Because it’s a classic HN overreaction. Most of the cars sold today don’t have anything that would be remotely disabled. This thread literally started from someone being removed from a beta due to them being fired. It has nothing to do with Tesla disabling some paid feature.
It’s just classic HN FUD that pollutes literally any thread about anything car related. It’s tiring.
It's not uncommon hereabouts to be all in on the everything-as-a-service-and-customers-have-no-rights mindset. Which is fine, I guess, for a fart button app but I'm not so excited about it leaching into my critical infrastructure (software OR hardware).
Meanwhile, our nearby Ford dealer didn't even know when our service appointment was, didn't send a confirmation when I originally scheduled it, and forgot to tell me that the date I was scheduled for wouldn't work because they didn't have the part and that they would need to "hold the car" while waiting for it to arrive. Trying to find another dealer to schedule this with is a pain, because they all have different websites and use different schedulers.
Needless to say, we haven't replaced this modem yet, and I am now wanting more than ever to replace that car with another Tesla.
Employees get it for free, no longer an employee, no more fsd.
Edit: I see he was in fsd beta, maybe he can just try to get his score up high enough, everyone who’s in the beta had to have a high enough score that I imagine he bypassed as an employee.
Employees got FSD as a bonus after meeting certain work goals. They didn't (to my knowledge) get provision FSD before then. FSD has is a product, and one sold as a likely asset (robotaxis!) Its equivalent to a company trying to claw back vested RSUs
>Any worker who buys a Tesla and agrees to share 300 to 400 hours of driving feedback with the company’s Autopilot team by the end of next year won’t have to pay for full self-driving -- an $8,000 saving -- or for a premium interior, which normally costs $5,000, Musk wrote.
One of the reasons I'll never buy an EV or any car that has a computer that phones home or can be remotely controlled, no matter how expensive used cars get.
Sadly I do not know much. I know Rich Rebuilds has mentioned the existence of such hacked firmware on his youtube channel, but didn't have it installed on his own Tesla.
I would not trust any software in a thing like a car. Custom software not inherently more likely to suck than manufacturer software, which is undoubtedly garbage. (I say this as a former firmware engineer.)
A large chunk of semi-precious metals with thousands of parts, significant assembly labor and noteworthy cost that often takes years of the median income to pay for should be near disposable when significant issues crop up?
Good luck with that one buddy. Cars ain't that cheap, significant repairs are often cheaper than the cost of a new vehicle.
Disposable anything is the blight of the modern age, here in Sweden I see a small movement towards buying 2nd hand for most things and... It just makes sense for a lot of items: kitchen appliances, sewing machines, power tools, home theater speakers, etc.
Reduce, reuse, recycle. Why have we forgotten the first 2 Rs? I learned this in school during the 90s, it's been 30 years and people still have a "disposable mindset". It's terrifying...
Yet a large percentage of Americans are perfectly fine with this model for iPhones through the iPhone Upgrade Program and independent carrier upgrade programs.
The cost-of-entry should be high, but with a high production rate, aggressive recycling and a consistent user experience, the cost-to-stay should be minimal. Car terminally breaks? Replace it with another one, and recycle the original to make a new one for someone else.
Minimal (ideally zero) waste, minimal impact on the environment, easier for all parties (customer is waiting at-most a few days for a new car; manufacturer spends time servicing lower-impact issues that could be addressed remotely at customer's homes; insurance payouts are less complicated since the resolution matrix is smaller), and significantly safer (new car that's known-good vs a repaired car with unpredictable failure modes due to alteration)
Recycling ie expensive and inefficient. Reducing what we use and reusing what we have is the most environmentally friendly option.
Plastics, leather, cloth, rubber printed circuit boards and such require significant labor to separate from eachother, and even if that labor is already done the cost to recycle it is higher than using virgin materials, and the result is lower quality.
Modern cars have reached their endgame for at least a decade. There is nothing to replace and recycle. There are no major upgrades. The whole point of electric vehicles is, excluding the battery, they have almost nothing to wear out relative ICE. The best way to upgrade a EV is to slap a modern battery pack in it like putting a 5000 mAh battery in a OEM-2500mAh phone.
The last car that I had to sell because I could not afford fixing had a $5,000 repair quote. Not because of the ice engine. Not because of the gasoline.
Because the wire harness was corroded.
Stop dreaming that electric cars do not need maintenance. Maybe not as regular maintenance as ice cars, but definitely they will be eoled in the same lifespan as ice cars.
Rust. In the northern US, we salt the bejeezus out of our roads in winter, and it eats our cars. Modern cars are far better in this regard, but not immune to salt cancer.
I have a classic from '82. The wiring harness is a mess, at some point people all kind of accessories to the standard wiring, including a second switch for the main head lights and a totally illegal boat horn with a separate switch to turn it off. I figured out the horn and the head lights, since then I decided to not touch it as long as it works. The car has all of three fuses, no way to have a simpler harness. I once asked a garage, for what turned out to be a faulty relay, and I got a conservative estimate of 2k just for diagnostics. It took me almost two weekends to figure the relay out by sheer chance.
Replacing, and diagnosing, a modern cars harness for 5k is actually quite reasonable if not even cheap. Especially since the harness rebuild means basically disassembling the majority of the car simply to get access.
It's true that carmakers have made self-repair inconvenient or impossible nowadays.
But wear and tear impacts all cars operated in the real world, not just gasoline cars. An EV is not magical, just another type of vehicle. Its most frequent failure modes are still being discovered as we put more miles on it and gain experience.
Source: work in the automotive manufacturing industry.
In certain situations (eg: the California Fiat 500e leases, where you paid nearly nothing due to tax credits over 3 years) the math can work, but outside of financial engineering from beneficial state and federal tax incentives the upfront cost of the car or the monthly payments plus the increased insurance cost (due to needing to carry full replacement coverage) means the lifetime cost of ownership doesnt pencil out.
If you were on an internal beta program of Apple/Google and as an Apple/Google employee badmouthed the product you were testing, would you call it a "shitstorm" if they revoked your access and fired you?
I had it in my head somehow that the only version of the FSD out was the beta, didn’t realize the beta was a layer on top of the paid FSD package. Cutting off beta access seems reasonable here if the paid FSD package wasn’t rescinded.
Autopilot - Tesla’s older auto-cruise control, now included on all their cars?
FSD - Tesla’s auto-drive that is anything but “Full” and essentially a live beta, and a $10k option.
FSD Beta - Tesla’s latest FSD software that’s somewhere between alpha and beta status. Free for those who qualify, request access, and have paid for FSD.
imo the distinction is deliberately obtuse, people pay 10k thinking they're getting FSD, and you do get auto lane change and smart summon, but stop signs and navigating autopilot are behind the safety-scored limited rollout.
It's an "internal beta" on public roads*. People should be allowed to share information about the vehicles they're driving that could have an effect on safety.
* I assume so, based on the first paragraph of the article: "showing how the company’s Full Self Driving Beta system worked in different locations around Silicon Valley"
> It should be criminal when the product has safety inplocation
I think you meant "implication". And no there is no "safety implications" in this case. This is just someone violating their NDA while also badmouthing their employer and being fired for it.
> Yes, personal retaliation against criticism is about as 'proper' behaviour as is pissing in public
There is zero evidence of any "personal retaliation" here.
You say "badmouthed", I say "exposed". Clearly this person was a Tesla fan, he was merely demonstrating (perhaps inadvertently) the inadequacies of a system for which there's am ongoing misleading narrative.
No one who has access to FSD Beta, is in any shape or form mistaken, to think that Tesla is under any obligation to keep providing the feature whether the driver has a safety score of 100 or not. Tesla clearly states in their terms, before you can turn FSD Beta on, that they reserve the right to take it away at any time for any reason and rightly so.
Our great HN community here throws rocks at Tesla and FSD Beta any chance they get. Why in the world would Tesla allow someone whom they employ, to generate bad press while they're still heavily developing a tech. Isn't FSD Beta already not enough negatively covered?
>Our great HN community here throws rocks at Tesla and FSD Beta any chance they get.
Wow, you and I have totally different perspectives. I see people rightly calling out the limitations and dangers of a technology whose benefits are greatly exaggerated by sycophants.
It's telling that you say a Tesla employee, car owner and fan is generating "bad press" by showing that the technology isn't what is claimed.
I'm in full support of people pointing out issues with tech (not so much with the press writing 10 page articles based on a tweet though). I'm also understanding of Tesla's position. We gotta call it what it really is — bad press. Dan O’Dowd of Dawn project put up a full page ad recently pooping all over Tesla. Guess where the evidence came from: FSD Beta videos on youtube. One has to essentially not care one bit to be OK with these videos if they run Tesla and hope to innovate in such a hostile industry and regulatory environment.
If you consider the US a hostile regulatory environment for cars, then don't innovate there. Teslas are sold worldwide. I'm glad the FCC, EPA, NHTSA exist, for all their flaws.
Plus, you can't pick and choose what bad press you choose to accept. This is true anywhere. Tesla's nonexistent PR department may have handled it better.
> If you consider the US a hostile regulatory environment for cars, then don't innovate there.
Most other western countries are alike (or worse). Except, US is where the energy, best capitalism and talent is so despite the above, probably still the best choice.
> I'm glad the FCC, EPA, NHTSA exist, for all their flaws.
Of course you do, as a consumer. It's only until you want to make something that isn't already made for the past few decades that you start disliking, hating and outright wanting them to just get the heck out of your way. Regulation in itself isn't a problem, its ever increasing and rarely ever decreasing amount that is the issue. There are many rules and regulation that haven't been updated for decades.
> Why in the world would Tesla allow someone whom they employ, to generate bad press while they're still heavily developing a tech. Isn't FSD Beta already not enough negatively covered?
Welp, you can’t blame others when you yourself is jumping into the burning pot of politics. Tesla just did that by firing the employee in question, and also blurred the line b/w normal business operation and politics by disabling FSD. Now, nothing can stop all the political notes from everywhere. Rather, if you advocate the freedom of speech, you should encourage this.
> Tesla just did that by firing the employee in question
I think that was a mistake. Taking away the beta privileges would have been sufficient.
> blurred the line b/w normal business operation and politics by disabling FSD
You're way down playing the impact of the kind of mindset that the average joe has about FSD Beta as portrayed in mainstream media. It's so hostile, emotionally charged and void of any evidence of actual danger, that it pushes the bias needle against Tesla to the breaking point. If your blood sweat and tear is being pummeled around the clock, you get into politics in a blink and double down with whatever you can muster.
Those who think Tesla is just in it for the money, well, there is no conversation to be had with them. They'll catch up. But if one actually believes in what Tesla claims to exist for, then it doesn't take a lot of thinking to see they're right in pushing back aggressively as they do.
This isn't GMail Beta though. This is beta-quality software roaming the streets posing potential, life-threatning danger to people. Why is it out there to begin with? You can't roll out unfinished features to a safety-critical machine and expect people to shut the fuck up.
That's the keyword here. It looks dangerous to some, but evidently, no one's hurt yet, driver or pedestrain. And we're talking 60K people with FSD Beta as of Jan (perhaps getting close to 100K around now). At 100K, and average 1000 miles, over 3-6month period, you have 100 million miles driven without a single injury let alone fatality. US average is 1.1 death per 100 million miles. If you don't look at these numbers and just go with the news, it sounds like Teslas are running over people GTA style.
> Why is it out there to begin with?
Because that turns out to be the only way so far to massively train the AIs to move this tech forward. If you think Waymo or any other self driving companies out there are gonna get anywhere with the amount of data they have, you need to get in the weeds a little and see what's what.
Yeah I get that it's one of those things where the only way to truly test it is "in the production environment," but Tesla must understand that _everybody_ is participating in those beta tests, not just the enrolled drivers. So long as that car is near me, I'm a participant too. Bu the way, Teslas are getting more common in Israel, and though I have no idea if FSD is even available here, I've noticed that whenever I see a Tesla in the mirror, I try to get as far away as possible from it, because there's a much higher than normal chance the driver isn't paying any attention. But I digress.
The things is that, looking from the side, it doesn't really seem like Tesla is interested in any feedback, judging by their reactions to what could only be described as healthy discussions. If they're getting a lot of flak, it's because they've earned it.
> If they're getting a lot of flak, it's because they've earned it.
I guess so, but I think in a different way. Only if they talked more about how much attention they pay to safety of people when they roll out beta to more users and add features, then perhaps the general public would be more understanding. I know about it from obscure tweets and fleeting mentions having watched countless hours of Tesla people talking about FSD, but you really have to dig to hear about it.
There have been calls for Tesla to brick all of their cars in Russia, which apparently is possible for them to do. I'm sure the company wants to pretend they don't hear those calls because if they did it, it'd scare off a lot of future customers but if they don't do it, they're accused of supporting the invasion of Ukraine. Weird times we live in.
Even github is being accused of facilitating the invasion. While the war is terrible, the accusations are absolutely bonkers. On the other hand, it all depends on the US gov. international trading and tax law regulations. They could pass a law just like they did with Iran and Tesla/Microsoft will have to follow suit.
pass a law? the last time they did this with crimea was a presidential executive order, citing a national emergency. passing laws would be used in a democracy. this is not one.
I do not understand why anyone (outside of maybe individuals with disabilities) would purposefully interface their actual brain with an item that is completely out of their control. I legitimately do not understand why you would allow that access.
If the company or a hostile government goes after my phone or internet, I can live without it. My brain?
I can choose to live without internet, and it would suck. I can choose to live without electricity, and it would suck. But I can choose it.
I cannot imagine a future where my brain, my actual living brain, is interfaced with anything that I do not have complete and utter control of. And it might suck, I might miss out on entertainment, medical treatments, or whatever, but you have to draw a line somewhere.
There's being a Luddite and then there's being skeptical of something that can really mess you up. I am convinced being absolutely skeptical and refusing to participate with brain interfaces owned/operated by a third party is not being a Luddite.
a) that would be an act of war facilitated by a private company, so, yeah, not a great idea, and
b) do people really want to set a precedent of having a private company prevent access to the thing you bought because you disagree with a political position?
I think it's relevant to note that the Russian government is being complicit in the theft of many billions of dollars worth of aircraft that leasing companies are entitled to have back under the terms of their existing agreements. In doing so, Russia is also wiping out their value.
During war, not supporting the effort is normally what is considered unacceptable. Private individuals and companies are all expected to do their part.
This shows that you don't own a Tesla, it owns you
Come now, kicking someone out of a beta - former employee or not - who is using the access to post reviews is hardly new or unique to this situation. Nor is it unethical.
He might not have had to purchased it, it could have been given to him as a perk of employment, and when he was let go...it was rescinded until he could purchase it like everyone else?
My dad has beta 10.11 on his tesla.
I don’t know that much about tesla, but apparently the betas are accessible to all FSD customers? I’m unsure if there’s even a “stable” version yet.
> apparently the betas are accessible to all FSD customers?
Incorrect. If you are an FSD customer, you are eligible to sign up and put yourself on the waitlist for FSD Beta, and then you get selected at some point in the future if you are lucky.
Source: been on that waitlist since it had first opened back in September 2021, still waiting to receive FSD Beta.
Indeed. And then they are disabling FSD when the car changes hands. If I was out $10,000 spent based on promised timelines, I would be talking to a lawyer. It seems like enough money.
I only know a couple of people who opted into paying for FSD, but they all regret it.
So did your dad get the beta for free as a perk? Or did he have to buy FSD to participate in the beta? Without knowing more, pitchforking at this point is probably not called for.
Almost, but your conclusion is overall correct. You gotta have FSD purchased, but you are correct that FSD Beta itself is free and invite only (you gotta sign up to get put on the waitlist and then get selected).
You have to request access and Tesla has to review it and reserves the right to revoke it at any time for any reason. They also turn on extensive additional monitoring of your vehicle while you're in the program.
Please don't misconstrue the facts. Access to the FSD Beta is not something that everyone just gets. You have to both request access and Tesla has to review your request to access it and then grant you access individually. It's a privilege, not a right, nor something you paid for.
Thats exactly the problem - the OP is saying you don't own it despite paying money for it
The entitled attitude that we as a business will take your money but provide nothing if we don't like your face, started with internet companies and is now spreading into the rest of life like cancer.
No, he still get's his full self driving whenever that's released. They haven't taken that away from him. They just kicked him out of the exclusive beta program which isn't paid.
This isn't accurate. There's an option to purchase the FSD package upfront or pay a monthly subscription (just a couple of taps on the phone app).
Either option enables Enhanced Autopilot with summon mode, automatic lane changes (configurable), navigation on autopilot (i.e. autopilot on interstates that can handle entrance and exit ramps).
If you've paid upfront, or have a subscription, you can now request access to the FSD Beta by tapping a button on the car's display.
Once agreeing to the conditions, your driving will be monitored and measured based on various characteristics. After each trip, a detailed safety score is shown on the mobile app, with a breakdown for that particular trip and a cumulative score. This includes detailed charts and metrics for each category. The process is transparent and well-documented, along with the math involved [0]. It even includes a simulator to see how changes to your driving would affect the score. It's honestly pretty impressive and highly polished; even the graphs are interactive. Like any metric, it's not flawless, but it serves its purpose.
Only after driving for an extended period while maintaining a safety score of 99 or 100, you'll eventually have an option to activate the FSD Beta.
The driver monitoring is quite sophisticated now. It's made abundantly clear that after 3 violations (or maybe 5 now), FSD Beta access will be revoked. Even picking up your phone with one hand to use it briefly will be detected by the in-cabin camera, and an alert will appear to pay attention.
As someone who participates in the FSD Beta, the barrier to entry is high. And the people testing it are likely to be the safest and most attentive drivers on the road. I keep both hands on the wheel, and I'm ready to take over at any moment.
Based on my anecdotal observations of how people behave on the road, I'd wager 95% of people would struggle with the safety rating :-). You'll find humorous YouTube videos of people being shocked by how low their score is--only after having watched them drive like an NYC cab driver!
Not to mention the built-in safety features make other cars seem primitive by comparison. For example, just recently, there was a cyclist far ahead who was behaving erratically, driving on and off the median, grass, and road. The car identifies a person on a bicycle (shown on the screen), analyzes the trajectory, and presents a series of audible beeps _well_ in advance to alert the driver. That's just one example of many.
The FSD Beta is updated approximately every two weeks, with extremely detailed release notes with lots of machine learning goodness [1]. Examples:
- Upgraded modeling of lane geometry from dense rasters ("bag of points") to an autoregressive decoder that directly predicts and connects "vector space" lanes point by point using a transformer neural network. This enables us to predict crossing lanes, allows computationally cheaper and less error prone post-processing, and paves the way for predicting many other signals and their relationships jointly and end-to-end.
- Improved the precision of VRU detections by 44.9%, dramatically reducing spurious false positive pedestrians and bicycles (especially around tar seams, skid marks, and rain drops). This was accomplished by increasing the data size of the next-gen autolabeler, training network parameters that were previously frozen, and modifying the network loss functions. We find that this decreases the incidence of VRU-related false slowdowns.
- Reduced the predicted velocity error of very close-by motorcycles, scooters, wheelchairs, and pedestrians by 63.6%. To do this, we introduced a new dataset of simulated adversarial high speed VRU interactions. This update improves autopilot control around fast-moving and cutting-in VRUs.
Just wait until non-employee people begin to get dropped from support for posting complaints to Twitter (While they're doing 80 on the highway in full autonomous mode).
That's when I'll just start riding a low-tech bicycle everywhere.
Assuming they have decent source control and an audit trail (most safety critical things do) you would probably have an easier time hiring someone to throw them off the cliff.
Assuming you care if people find out you did it of course but if literal murder via software hacking doesn't get you in trouble then you could just hire a hitman for less money.
This isn't something that is easy to do. You need to interact with probably 12 people any of whom could trivially copy the data off the machine and whistleblow you.
Criminal behavior implies something minor. Murdering a dissident isn't minor.
Of course, those 12 people could also expect to receive the same kind of 'sanction' that they just witnessed. And since their employer has access to all their personal communications while in the car, the company has access to a wealth of the most sensitive personal info that's almost trivial to abuse, if in fact retaliatory murder WAS considered to be overkill.
That might be enough to dissuade them from whistleblowing. (That and the fact that whistleblowing is nearly always a great way to commit professional suicide in this country.)
If they had good evidence he was a traitorous Russian agent or some other person who was a threat to the government or the corporation they would be be justified in extrajudicial execution. Or so many would seem to believe.
Smart summon is triggered through an API call over cellular network, true or false?
Assuming the request is cryptographically signed or else originates over an encrypted connection, is the certificate in the hands of the car owner, or Tesla?
QED, whether or not cops make shit up, Tesla has the capability to remote command teslas. If they are smart, they will prevent you from sending destinations to autopilot navigation over the same API. But anyway if they can push updates OTA w/o user interaction, it's all moot, I, Robot style
Just because you responded three times does not make you right. The ability to trigger an update from your phone is possible, Tesla can and does remotely start and stop updates in case of an issue downloading, and either way they own the stack all up and can change any behavior at any time.
They have remote root access to the vehicle. Even if they didn’t, they can push an update specific to your vehicle that then drives you off a cliff at a designated time.
> Updates are not automatic. You choose when to install them. People can and regularly do, wait long periods of time before updating.
Says Tesla's software, which can be changed or can be lying.
IIRC, one self-described ex-Telsa firmware guy recounted on some story where he or his team scripted running some SSH commands on a bunch of vehicles to fix some bug they pushed that wouldn't have been able to fix otherwise.
Updates are also not generally delivered via cellular, unless they're classified as critical.
Tesla owns the entire stack. They choose when to update, it just happens to be easier and more pleasant to give people the choice. Given that you can trigger the update via the mobile app, there is clearly support for remote updates. And if you as an owner can do it, then Tesla certainly can, even if they choose not to.
Demonstrably false. Prior to the M3 release, someone with an MS discovered its existence in the firmware.
Tesla disabled his ethernet port in the vehicle, automatically downgraded the firmware to another version which didn't have references, and then blocked the car from getting future upgrades.
-User mode updates- may not be automatic - that does nothing to prove that Tesla cannot update a vehicle without interaction.
That's basically guaranteed not to be true. What would prevent them from sending software that does what the current one does except the steering is triggered by different events?
Anyone who develops software is going to say "yes they can". The optional aspect is just its normal behavior, but there will be a forced upgrade mode in there for if they ever need it.
Is that by policy or by technology? If it's a confirmation button on a screen, I'm betting it's only policy that stops them from updating the software without permission.
> This shows that you don't own a Tesla, it owns you
No, it shows that beta software is issued under a license. No one "owns" FSD beta. You apply and get granted access. It's not the car, it's not even the car's native software suite. It's a test version of software Tesla is offering on different terms.
It can be both pretty amazing and massively failing at times? I mean 10 years ago we would not think the FSD beta is possible, even if it is not reliable enough to be used as self driving.
That's like judging humanity by ZOMG Fail videos you saw on tiktok. Call a friend, get a ride and see for yourself. It's been months now since I've had a safety-related intervention. The biggest problems are things like lane selection and timidity.
Sounds like he broke some kinda of NDA which he probably signed himself, resulting in removal from the beta program and being let go from his position. That kinda sucks, because it seems his content did have a positive spin to it and it doesnt seem like he meant to hurt anyone or the company.
I don't see whats wrong with the action taken though. He probably agreed to these terms and then he broke them. Whether he was aware that he was going against his own agreement or not is out of the question. I don't like Tesla as a company or a car manufacturer (nothing personal, I just wouldnt buy their cars) and I agree that this response was probably to be expected by anyone who was aware of the terms surrounding their employment and the internal beta access that position grants them.
I have to share the road with people in the FSD beta program, and I never signed an NDA for the FSD beta program, so I think I should be able to hear people recount their driving experiences on public roads with me.
That's a jump. Ukraine's president asks for Starlink because you know, his country is under a brutal invasion and many services are getting cut in the active warzones, and Musk for once does a decent thing by accepting, and your interpretation is that Musk is helping NATO? The alliance that doesn't participate in the conflict besides cry and send help to the invaded country.
>Elon already proved he would use Starlink to assist Nato.
It was a bit of a joke but there is some truth to it.
Do you think only civilians use the internet connection he provided? The troops that Nato trained for the past 8 or so years rely on uninterrupted internet connections as well.
Teslas are a perfect mobile surveillance tool with cameras, GPS, remote control capabilities, etc...
It's not a stretch to expect they could easily be used as ground versions of aerial drones with the benefit of plausable deniability (FSD Beta did it).
Once you get in bed with the military it's a slippery slope. Isn't google using their computer vision tech to help better target 'enemies' on the battle field?
During a bear market or temporary downturn induced squeeze, these sort of relationships and contracts may not just seem more attractive but financially necessary.
No need to put it that way as if you don't understand the priorities.
We'll check back in a few years and see if I'm wrong about the trajectory. Btw, I've been right about most tech companies, 2013-2015 leaks made that clear.
>The priority of getting publicity?
>But priority doesn't really matter
Priority does matter and it should be common sense that connecting an army to the internet is a higher priority than connecting civilians, especially during a conflict/war.
Let's be serious, anyone reading this thread will understand the point that you seem to be trying to avoid.
My guess is you're right. Many companies have terms in their employee agreements limiting what employees can say/post about the company publicly, including via social media, YouTube, and so on. Many are extremely restrictive and enforced regularly. For example, good luck finding a non-throwaway HN poster self-identifying as an Apple employee. I don't talk about my employer here or even contribute to threads about it. These agreements are very common, check your employment agreement--you might have agreed to one, too.
The driver surely has access to nonpublic information, even if some of what they do is publicly observable.
Not having an NDA would be inappropriate for any beta tester of a proprietary product, regardless of the location in which their testing primarily occurs.
For context, NDA's are extremely common - in my experience, you can scarcely have a coffee chat with a tech employee at their office without signing one.
His videos were amazing for following FSD. Most sources on Youtube seem very biased in talking up current capability. Pretty shitty to fire him and disable FSD on his car when he made it clear to higher ups he was operating the channel. I can't imagine he gets fired if he put up videos like some do with over the top headlines like FSD SAVED MY LIFE or other hype channels.
Access to the FSD beta isn't something you buy your way into. Tesla grants it to you and clearly states that it has the right to revoke it at any point in time (and has for many people).
He was the guy that let the car drive into the pole. That completely goes against what everyone agrees to when joining FSD, and probably what employees agree to. Fact that he even posted and and tried to capitalize on it really shows...
This was considered the first confirmed crash on FSD beta. Unfortunately his firing is going to encourage other beta testers to only show positive clips.
That same tester (Galileo Russel) nearly had beta access revoked after posting an earlier video where the beta crowded a pedestrian. He issued a DMCA takedown to try to stop the spread of the clip. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28566376
Whatever you think of the beta (I think it’s blatantly irresponsible), Tesla should not be pressuring the testers to only share the good clips. That will lead to overestimation of the system’s capabilities and deaths in the long run, like what we’ve already seen from autopilot.
I think the entire concept of using this kind of beta-test on public roads is an extremely dubious one, so I agree with your "fuck em". I just don't think the guy is a "goddamn psychopath" based on a nervous emotional release laugh.
>Publicizing problems with it doesn't help anyone.
This is a joke, right? The general public is forced to participate in Tesla's FSD beta program by virtue of sharing the roads with them - Tesla drivers have to sign waivers, consent forms and have to be approved in order to participate, while the rest of us have no say in the fact that our lives are at risk. Yes, we risk our lives on the road with other drivers, but we understand other drivers (to a point, obviously); we don't understand autonomous vehicles, their capabilities or their faults as good as we do other people.
So with that in mind, it helps the general public to be aware of the risks and to understand what these vehicles are/aren't capable of.
Neither does posting clips of how great the system is. If they didn't want any publicity, they could simply put the system under NDA. The way it is right now, they want to have their cake and eat it too.
It used to be under NDA and people attacked Tesla for doing it so Musk decided to release people from being under NDA. Not being under a legally enforceable NDA doesn't mean Tesla can't pick and choose to remove people from the program for literally any reason they like. IMO they should put everyone under NDAs.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't here. People just want to attack things.
You're not wrong, but as someone who is forced to share the road with FSD Teslas, I'm happy that he was willing to show what one is capable of doing without proper interference.
When the risk of an airplane crashing into my car/my bike/me as a pedestrian is 1/1,000,000 as likely as a car collision, we can talk. Meanwhile, if you want to splat into the edge of a mountain, I really have no feelings about it.
Or did you mean you would use your Lear's autopilot to try to do some extremely low level flying over a highway?
I think the point you're trying to make (maybe) is: aviation autopilots will also lead to disaster if used improperly, but that doesn't imply that they're bad or deficient technology (but rather that they were used improperly).
First, aviation autopilots are a mature, tested, reliable, certified technology and are deployed only under narrow, precisely delineated circumstances by trained professionals (not a beta product tested "in production" by amateurs).
Next, though, you imply that the FSD was used somewhat irresponsibly or improperly here. I fail to see that. He used it as it was supposed to, and when he saw that it was swerving into the pylon, he reacted immediately (within the limits of human reaction time), which was insufficient. How was that improper use?
That cars are capable of crashing was known before FSD was even a thing. Statistically, you should be much more afraid of the cars driven by human drivers, because they can do everything FSD can, and there's truly not many on the road using FSD.
Statistically, yes, but I think people can be afraid of the lack of direct accountability for AVs. A distracted/drunk driver, for example, is something easy to attribute cause and blame to. And you're not afraid of the car, you're afraid of the potentially negligent, dangerous people driving it.
But an autonomous object that behaves wildly unpredictably simply because of a malfunctioning sensor or a software bug is something that defies known reasoning which you're normally trained to respond to. You can no longer make eye contact with drivers at a crosswalk, instead you can only assume the AV will behave as normal, and if it doesn't and runs you over there's nothing you could have done differently and you were just unlucky and lost the statistics lottery.
I am very uneasy of car manufactures and regulators writing me off as a factored-in statistic. You are basically then allowing vehicles on the road with a deterministic cause of incident.
Perhaps this is just a difference between two valid personal views.
For me, people are the thing that will be wildly unpredictable. I anticipate that autonomous vehicles will eventually make roads seem extremely machine-like & predictable.
I recognise that Tesla's FSD isn't there yet, but I anticipate that it eventually will get there.
In a strict utilitarian analysis, they are saving one person's life, but could probably save several peoples' lives and dramatically improve the quality of life of others.
One utilitarian perspective is that a world where you are at risk of your vital organs being reallocated at any time is such a bad world (deep anxiety for everyone all the time) that organ seizure would never be a reasonable policy choice.
On the other hand:
(1) Maybe this isn't true and we just think organ harvesting is an evil because of our innate status quo bias. Maybe like in Kazuo Ishiguro's 'Never Let Me Go' if there were a class of people who could be harvested at any time they would just ... Accept it and deal with it.
(3) what if there were one person who just LOVED forcible organ harvesting, loved it ten billion times more than every other human on the planet hated it? Morally a utility maximizer would choose to bend to that monster's preference.
You're trying to make this polarized, but it's not about good vs evil. It's an observation that it's likely something in an equilibrium today is likely to shift somewhat in the future. No one is saying "now we need to harvest organs" but "there is going to be a new problem emerging in the future, and that problem will require new solutions".
Even as someone quite interested in autonomous vehicles, and optimistic that they will become extremely feasible, creating dramatic changes in our world in the process, I hadn't until now thought of the organ shortage they might create.
Does it mean we start creating people to harvest their organs? Of course not; please don't be ridiculous. Perhaps it means that biotech companies have yet another gap in medicine to think about tackling, though.
It's certainly not reasonable. But neither is responding to a question about the side effects of fewer donations as a result of car crashes with a dismissal about how the people in the cars will be alive.
> That cars are capable of crashing was known before FSD was even a thing. Statistically, you should be much more afraid of the cars driven by human drivers, because they can do everything FSD can, and there's truly not many on the road using FSD.
It's not about statistics, it's about technical sensing limitations in Teslas leading to blind spots that have provably killed people. Human drivers with such blindness are not even allowed on the road. But Tesla refuses to use state of the art sensing technologies which have been shown to make autonomous cars safer for everybody. Tesla inexplicably and stubbornly refuses to use these sensors, it's really baffling to me. This leads to their cars having limitations in their sensing capabilities, such as trouble detecting large stationary objects. Therefore you see stories often reported of Teslas running into parked vehicles, especially large ones like fire trucks [0]. This problem dates back to 2016 when a man was decapitated because his Tesla couldn't recognize it was about to run into a tractor trailer [1]. In a sane world, that would have been the end of Tesla's experiment and they would have been forced to use safety features we all know they should be using (and Tesla knew or should have known at the time of the accident). But no, the same exact thing happened again in 2019, but this time with a Model 3 sliding under a tractor trailer [2]!
This is literally what driverless cars are supposed to excel at -- don't run into things -- and yet Teslas routinely do this because of limitations in the Tesla sensor stack, limitations we don't need statistics to call out as troubling for technical reasons. At this point, this choice has a confirmed and ever-expanding body count, and Tesla is not working to fix this problem, as it's been reoccurring for over 5 years now (wasn't level 5 autonomous capability predicted within that timespan?); nor are they willing to cease using public spaces to beta test their products, which in my opinion needs to end immediately.
It is entirely understandable that Tesla would wing it without lidar. Once one gets over the assumption that their priority is creating a level 5 system.
What Tesla cares about is selling expensive vaporware. If this vaporware depended on an expensive prop, this would cut into cash flow they want to spend on software dev. They've repeatedly said "we can do it without lidar". What they meant is "we cannot afford lidar in our situation." It doesn't look like it's going to work, but it also doesn't look like adding lidar solves the basic issues. So in the end at least they didn't con people into buying useless lidar. Just useless vaporware.
"Let it hit" is pretty deceptive wording. You can see in the video it was not an intentional decision on his part. He trusted the car in a low-risk situation, where the only repercusion was small cosmetic damage. Perfect to see what the car can and cannot do in a responsible way. To me it does not reflect the least bit poorly on him.
I do find it weird that an employee ongoingly posts critical reviews though. I can understand why Tesla do not want that.
The video was embedded in the article he linked, but for maximum convinience the direct link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbSDsbDQjSU and the time of the collision is 3:30.
Posting unbiased full length videos of FSD was much more informative than self-censoring for Tesla, or "capitalizing" as you call it. The fact they removed his access to FSD makes it likely the few with access to FSD will feel the need to self-censor issues in the future.
He broke the terms of the FSD program. That should, for the safety of everyone on the road, lead to revocation. I'm part of FSD, I don't self-censor. It's terrible right now. I'm more worried about youtubers letting the car make mistakes just for the views. And honestly it's not safe for people to be trying to talk while paying attention to a car that constantly does dumb things.
A lot of people in this thread are mixing up the FSD option (that you buy for your car) with the invite-only FSD beta. Currently the non-beta FSD will drive itself on limited access roads (basically taking you from onramp to offramp, changing lanes, taking interchanges, etc), but it's basically cruise control on surface streets. The FSD beta will self-drive pretty much anywhere (even parking lots) but it has only rolled out to a few percent of Teslas. Both versions use cameras inside the car to monitor the driver's attention. If you blind the internal camera, the car will refuse to engage autopilot or FSD beta.
If you're seeing "egregiously dangerous" behavior, you should call the police. The dash cam should be more than enough evidence to get the reckless driver charged.
You can't use autopilot or FSD while on your phone. I've tested this myself. Within a second or two you're alerted to grab the wheel and look ahead. If you don't, you'll get locked out of autopilot for the rest of your drive and your safety score will be dinged.[1] Tesla's ML algorithms even have a classification of "PHONE_USE" for the cabin camera.[2]
This service is apparently "$12,000 up front or $199 per month" according to this article. You are saying that people should not be allowed to show that this very expensive service is not very good as it can't handle and empty street with a small pole in it? And that showing that this very expensive service is not very good is "against the terms" and should lead to "revocation" (presumably without refund)? That sounds like some border-line dystopian stuff here.
Anyway, this FSD beta is billed to "enable Tesla vehicles to virtually drive themselves both on highways and city streets by simply entering a location in the navigation system, but it is still considered a level 2 driver assist since it requires driver supervision at all times." Maybe, for the safety of everyone on the road, this entire thing shouldn't exist considering how badly it performs. But apparently showing this thing is kinda crap is the problem, rather than the company using the actual roads for the beta tests of their crappy software.
That video did not remotely seem like he intentionally crashed it like others are speculating. They even braked the car, which the TSLA didn't respect.
Not to mention, it ran a rolling right turn on a red light. FSD is definitely not ready for mass market, although TSLA seems to be willing to make the bets necessary to make that happen, the only way it can.
ABS respects your brake, it just does it by apply counterintutive high-speed anti-brake pumping. It'd be like saying power steering doesn't respect your steering.
Amazing how much Musk advocates for free speech for himself (he's super salty over the SEC wanting his tweets to be reviewed, due to his breaking the law previously) but will do anything he can to stifle free speech for others.
Tesla has about 100,000 employees yet people seem to operate under the absurd assumption that Elon is in every meeting, in every scrum, and sits in a cubicle managing the HR department. This is most definitely the decision of legal and HR and there’s an excellent chance Elon Musk knows nothing about it.
I can be fired at my 10k employee company after 20 years of service and the CEO will never know of my existence.
A lot of comments here seem to miss how exactly Tesla FSD works.
First, it is important to understand that there is FSD and then there is FSD beta. For our purposes, these two are distinct.
- To be able to use FSD, you must purchase it for $12,000 USD.
- To be able to use FSD beta you must have FSD AND either 1) have a high enough driver score after which Tesla might invite you to join the FSD Beta or 2) receive access to the FSD beta whilst you are an employee
FSD Beta has extremely strict prerequisites. Some of these conditions include traveling 100 miles or more in a 30-day period, having a computed driver score that must be in the top percentiles of driver safety, and additionally, Tesla must actively be pursuing a fresh batch of FSD Beta invitees.
In anycase, after the entire Otto / Uber lawsuit(s) + one of the engineers supposedly uploading source code files to their iCloud account, Tesla Autopilot really hardened the NDAs around the department. I don't think they were in the wrong.
"Hey guys it's AI Addict. If you're new here welcome, if you're a veteran it's good to see you. Today I'm testing FSD Beta in downtown San Jose for another stress test review.
Some of you may know I worked for Tesla helping develop FSD and I test operated their software.
Big update there, I was fired from Tesla in February with my YouTube being cited as the reason. Why? Even though my uploads are from my personal vehicle off company time or property, with software I paid for.
The morning of being fired I had zero improper use strikes in my vehicle. Shortly after being fired my system was suspended.
This channel is meant to educate the public by showing honest reviews from experts with industry knowledge.
I care about finding important safety bugs and I still want to help, — Luckily this is silicon valley where there is plenty of beta to go around so today I'm in a new tesla."
Auto-generated caption extracted with formatting added by me.
I thought Musk is constantly railing for free speech on Twitter (he inserts himself into any major event, trucker protests, Ukraine). Awaiting his commentary.
No, the negative consequences would be prison time. It is one thing for him to say stupid things on Twitter, but the 'Full Self Driving' scheme is perhaps the biggest fraud the world has ever seen. Tesla claimed to have a system back in 2016 which needed no human input whatsoever. At the current state of development Teslas will crash into concrete pillars without human intervention. Musk's lies are illegal and he has not paid for them.
I know that OP was talking about the fact that Musk is a manchild, but I'm more concerned about the fact that he's leading a criminal conspiracy.
It could be that it was perceived as a general conflict of interest. Maybe even be both ways; Tesla could be concerned that he's seemingly reviewing the product independently, without it being clear enough that he works for Tesla, akin to Amazon sellers reviewing their own products.
It's also possible that he was let go for reasons completely unrelated to the YouTube channel.
He didn't purchase FSD Beta, because it isn't for sale. Current FSD is for sale, and you will receive FSD Beta update when it gets out of beta. The only way to currently get FSD Beta is get selected (after applying) into the beta tester group for it.
If you want to record videos or reviews of yourself driving current FSD (that's for sale), you are more than welcome to, no one will stop you, and you aren't breaking any rules. FSD Beta is literally a beta tester program. And selective small-audience beta tests for all kinds of products typically carry extra restrictions in terms of what you can publicly reveal as a participant.
Of course Starlink is working on the firmware. Musk works on a lot of things, like minisubs to rescue children. But it's unclear they will deliver, because (a) it's a hard problem and (b) Musk has an issue with deadlines, and seems particularly bad at actions that need immediate handling.
They already delivered Starlink and it's working in Ukraine. They're making improvements to mitigate jamming but to imply they didn't "deliver" is absurd. Regarding similar projects, there are more success stories (e.g. Tonga) than failures but they're ignored since they don't fit into a simple narrative.
Yes, they did in fact deliver the star links. I was talking about the anti-jamming/anti-detecting firmware. Given that various militaries have thrown billions upon billions on radar/comms jamming and detecting, it seems like it's probably a hard problem.
There's a lot that can be done to help in terms of preventing jamming and detecting, and it mostly involves a tradeoff with bandwidth/latency. The simple approach to evade jamming is to decrease the FEC (forward error correction) ratio (meaning using more bandwidth to send each bit, simply put) and increase retransmit backoff and any timeouts, to make detection harder you would send packets from the user's dish less frequently and with random delay (increasing upstream latency).
Both could be countered by a sophisticated adversary, but the Russian troops may be a little preoccupied at the moment, and their EW teams are probably going to focus on Bayraktar before Starlink...
Starlink have already enabled "Roaming" for Ukraine which involves similar tradeoffs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PDVURcvWeg (in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the changes enabled for roaming also improve jamming resilience)
I didn't mean to say I'm unimpressed with Starlink as a whole. It's a cool piece of technology. I just wanted to say that the issues they're facing are truly serious and have had huge resources thrown at them.
Meanwhile, I assume it's far easier to take out Starlink than Bayraktar. In no small part because interference was part of the threat model when Bayraktar's hardware and software were being designed. And they can get a lot of results for less effort with Starlink.
It’s crazy how to truth can hide in plain site. This guys channel had raw footage of FSD driving through terrain deliberately chosen to be difficult and FSD absolutely shined. Just flicking through the channel it’s immediately apparent that FSD is the most advanced self driving system by a mile. But sometimes it made mistakes. And literally any time I have ever seen a video of FSD float to the top of a link aggregator site, it’s a video of one of the mistakes. If you didn’t deliberately look through the archives yourself, you might not ever know that FSD does anything besides make mistakes.
The reason the failure videos float to the top is because failure in self-driving can result in serious bodily harm for those that have little to no control of whether they’re participating in a review or test.
I genuinely don't think this is true. FSD is better than a lot of people make it out to be, but I'm pretty sure they're still leagues behind Cruise who is behind Waymo.
I don't think Tesla publishes their data, but from the 2021 report [1] Cruise is at 42,022 miles/disengagement and Waymo is at 7,800. In fairness, Waymo switched their car base car, which seems to be causing issues. Waymo was at 29,944 miles/disengagement in 2020.
The videos I've seen of Teslas appear to have a much lower miles/disengagement number. Even if we presume they're going 60mph the whole time (they're not), they would need to have 1 disengagement per 130 hours of video just to keep up with Waymo's new, much lower stats. They'd need 1 disengagement per 700 hours of video to keep up with Cruise. With a more realistic estimate of an average 15mph, you'd have to quadruple those numbers.
There's some wiggle room, because disengagements and whether they're reportable is somewhat subjective. The delta seems large enough to say that Tesla isn't particularly close, though.
Yes it can drive, but it does so on a very sketchy way. Yes it's advanced, but not nearly advanced enough. The worst part, sometimes you can't react fast enough if the car makes a mistake.
Getting this beta off the roads cannot happen quickly enough. I don't want to risk my life for the gain of some company. I don't care if FSD drives 99% correctly, the 1% is what can cost lives.
If you look careful, you also see FSD is not a smooth drive at all. I'm on the edge of the seat all the time and people who are comfortable in it, are because of ignorance.
But by doing the beta test, we can get a safe FSD out sooner, and it doesn’t take much to be safer than the average driver. So even though running a beta on public roads has its risks, it might save lives in the long run if it means we get an effective FSD out 5 years sooner for example.
I seen many fanboy made videos where shit just works, sometimes the fanboys live stream and the mistakes can't be hidden. When we get full data transparency( where full here mean 100% and not the fake "full" from the Tesla dictionary) just want to know if Tesla's PR stats include the mistakes too when they calculate safety , what I mean is if each time a human had to intervene is counted as a crash , and how corners or roads where the user has no choice then take over are also counted. Is like F in FSD seems to be mathematically { F, the subset of everything where our shit worked(we intentionally exclude stuff and have our fanboys defend them as micro mistakes or blame the roads, or blame the driver or blame anyone else/ in our dictionary FSD and autopilot means whatever we want to mean and yes the naming is very clever to be super missleading because $$$ ) }
I price motor insurance for a living and in my models the absolute worst 'insurable' risks (ones that pass underwriting scrutiny) will have some sort of impact every 3rd year. If we filter that to more severe cases where there's bodily injury it moves out to 8/9 years.
What this means is the absolute worst drivers will go ~100k miles between causing serious accidents so the threshold between good, bad and awful drivers is really far out into the tails of the distribution. Without actual driving data to work from we don't know how safe FSD is and youtube videos are purposefully selected for views. Even so the sheer number and 'randomness' of fails is concerning because nothing like alcohol, speeding or inexperience to point to.
Yes thank you. I was literally thinking "the worst driver I know has been in two accidents in the 20 years of our friendship, that must be pretty close to 99.9% safe."
I don't have very strong intuition about risks this small. I do know the thing that ultimately lead me to being able to beat nethack at will was internalizing the idea that "something that's 99% safe is almost certain to kill you over the course of a run." Feels similar.
This, as someone in tangentially related industry I see the very same issue - you need a LOT of tail events to be able to train the models on them and obviously tail events are rare by construction. So it will be all smooth sailing until you hit the 1/1e9 and kill someone with your model3.
So from viewing some videos it is apparent to you that Tesla's FSD is the most advanced? Sorry to say this, but this is as unscientific as it gets. There are data and metrics to determine this and there is so much to consider when evaluation and comparing the data from these kinds of systems.
One person assessing this from on person's (and an employee even more so) youtube channel is just fanboy talk.
> When the company fired Bernal late last month, his written separation notice did not include the reason for his firing. It came after one of his videos depicted a drive in San Jose where his car knocked over bollards while FSD Beta was engaged.
This is particularly troubling and concerning. I didn't know that the car was an employee car. Given the timeline presented here, it seemed that he was fired for showing a failure mode for FSD Beta that people absolutely needed to see. (I'm also in the program.)
or perhaps his thinking is that his tesla stock will be worthless if FSD sees wide release before its ready; better to keep their feet to the public fire and push them to improve the product,
I didn’t say malicious, I said knowingly. i.e. someone misspeaking might be forgivable.
This person knew what they were publishing. I don’t suspect they were malicious, they were just reckless and had no respect for their role in the workplace.
I definitely don’t think that personal gain is a good excuse for undermining your coworkers.
Let's not try to paint him as a hero. He continued working at Tesla despite knowing the fraud they were perpetrating. He endangered everyone around him by operating the "Full Self Driving" "Beta" on public roads despite knowing it didn't work.
“AI Addict”. Cool. That sounds like a vlog I should enjoy. But I'd never have heard of him or the latest problems with Autopilot if the company hadn't overreacted and made him famous. Thanks for the heads up, Tesla!
I'm sure he broke several contractual obligations by doing that. I mean I wish he could do stuff like that, but when you sign a contract you sign a contract.
You don’t have free speech when it comes to your employment. If I made videos representative of my company or its tools when I don’t have the authority to publicly represent my company, I’d be shit canned too. That’s normal policy at corporations. Only specific roles are usually allowed to speak on behalf of the company and its products.
Putting yourself in a situation in which the public might assume you are speaking on behalf of your employer is unwise, unless speaking for your employer is your actual job. And even if it is actually your job, it's just common sense that you shouldn't publish content that makes your employer look bad.
It doesn't matter if you have "permission" or your managers are "aware of it." Permission can be revoked. Managers can change their minds or be overruled.
This is just how the world works. Maybe it's not how things should work, but it's reality. This guy learned that lesson the hard way.
The interesting thing is that Tesla doesn't have a public relations department (they were all fired in 2020). Reporters' queries all go unanswered. The only one who is authorized to speak on behalf of Tesla is Elon, and he does so mostly one-way through his Twitter account.
> And even if it is actually your job, it's just common sense that you shouldn't publish content that makes your employer look bad.
Given the output of the CEO of Tesla I feel like this would be a pretty amusing argument to make. "Do I make Tesla look worse than Elon does on a regular basis?"
something of a stockholm syndrome isnt it, they are free to leave but they make too much money, and actually ousting the chief meme officer, I assume would crash the stock, perhaps only temporarily
Can you point me to anywhere he claimed to speak on the behalf of Tesla? As a frequent viewer of his videos I'm not aware of him ever doing that. Didn't even know he worked for Tesla until this article.
> Can you point me to anywhere he claimed to speak on the behalf of Tesla?
That doesn't matter. People might think he spoke on behalf of the company even if he never said he did. That's why it's unwise to post things about your employer.
I'm not sure why people are surprised why someone would be fired for making their employer look bad? If you publicly badmouth your employer you can get fired for it if they want to. This is not something abnormal.
This shows that you don't own a Tesla, it owns you. What was Musk saying again about the freezing of the bank accounts of the Canadian truckers?