Tesla says “Full Self-Driving” software doesn't make cars autonomous

It looks like they&#x27;re about to run into trouble with the California DMV over false claims of autonomy.[1]<p>13 CCR § 228.28<p>§ 228.28. Statements About Autonomous Technology.<p><i>(a) No manufacturer or its agents shall represent in any advertising for the sale or lease of a vehicle that a vehicle is autonomous unless it meets all of the following requirements:</i><p><i>(1) The vehicle meets the definition of an autonomous vehicle specified in Vehicle Code section 38750 and section 228.02(b) of Article 3.8.</i><p><i>(2) The vehicle was manufactured by a manufacturer licensed pursuant to Vehicle Code section 11701 also holding a valid autonomous vehicle manufacturer&#x27;s permit issued pursuant to this Article at the time of the vehicle&#x27;s manufacture.</i><p><i>(b) The use of terms to describe the performance of a vehicle that is known, or by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, will likely induce a reasonably prudent person to believe a vehicle is autonomous, as defined in Vehicle Code section 38750 and 228.02(b) of Article 3.8, constitute an advertisement that the vehicle is autonomous for the purposes of this section and Vehicle Code section 11713.</i><p>Here&#x27;s the CA definition of an autonomous vehicle:<p><i>(1) “Autonomous technology” means technology that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator.</i><p>...<p><i>(B) An autonomous vehicle does not include a vehicle that is equipped with one or more collision avoidance systems, including, but not limited to, electronic blind spot assistance, automated emergency braking systems, park assist, adaptive cruise control, lane keep assist, lane departure warning, traffic jam and queuing assist, or other similar systems that enhance safety or provide driver assistance, but are not capable, collectively or singularly, of driving the vehicle without the active control or monitoring of a human operator.</i><p>As of right now, there is only one company that has an California autonomous vehicle deployment permit - Nuro. They have a little electric vehicle which makes deliveries without a driver. It&#x27;s golf cart sized and has a top speed of 25MPH. Tesla just has the &quot;testing with a driver&quot; permit, the &quot;learner&#x27;s permit&quot; for autonomous driving. 56 companies have that. Six other companies have advanced to the &quot;testing without a driver&quot; permit.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;alanohnsman&#x2F;2021&#x2F;03&#x2F;09&#x2F;california-reviewing-teslas-full-self-driving-feature-after-company-clarifies-its-limits" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;alanohnsman&#x2F;2021&#x2F;03&#x2F;09&#x2F;californ...</a>

&gt;&quot;not capable of recognizing or responding&quot; to &quot;static objects and road debris, emergency vehicles, construction zones, large uncontrolled intersections with multiple incoming ways, occlusions, adverse weather, complicated or adversarial vehicles in the driving path, and unmapped roads.&quot;<p>They really gotta come up with some standard terms for this stuff that the car companies all comply with. The food industry has a lot of standards for what is in things you buy before you name it a thing. That way we all know what we&#x27;re getting into ...<p>They shouldn&#x27;t be using &quot;autopilot&quot;, &quot;full self driving&quot;, until it really is.

I genuinely can’t understand why so many people are willing to make a large purchase from a company so willing to lie to and exploit its customers.

For some reason this all brings to mind the very early 1900s, when every shady food manufacturer was slapping any label of ingredients on its cans, deceiving (or at best, confusing) the public with different or convoluted definitions, arbitrary standards of quality, made up terminology, hawking their brand of particular wares as honest while the rest was not.<p>You would be at a disadvantage to tell the truth in such an environment.<p>And then finally the FDA came along, when people (or Congress) had had enough of it. They laid out what certain words and terms meant, and what was allowed to be claimed. Sometimes I think we forget how much this was once needed, and that it doesn&#x27;t just magically solve itself.

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=D0Dhrx4H-wA" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=D0Dhrx4H-wA</a><p>These videos show the state of the latest self-driving features pretty well. It’s obviously not reliable or comprehensive, and definitely still needs a human driver. On the other hand progress is rapid and in simple situations it can drive autonomously point to point.<p>Also being able to handle an adversarial driver is qualitatively different to debris in the road, so there does seem nuance in the list of failure conditions would be helpful in terms of determining how important they are in reality.<p>I am sure many people will buy this just to see the quality of the systems for themselves. It does appear to be the most advanced driver assistance system widely deployed on the market.

We need a standard, government definition for what “full self driving” means.<p>Can I put my blind grandmother in the car, remove the steering wheel, and send her on her way? Anything less is an important step in the process but not “full self driving.”<p>The problem is...it’s reckless to assume that people will give any attention to the road if they’re told that their car is “full self driving.”

For a good time, read through the different archived versions of Tesla.com&#x2F;autopilot:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;*&#x2F;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;tesla.com&#x2F;autopilot" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;*&#x2F;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;tesla.com&#x2F;autopilot</a><p>&gt; All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.<p>This is like saying as a person with legs I have the hardware needed to run a 4-minute mile.

<i>&quot;Tesla has one message for customers and investors, and another one for legal authorities.&quot;</i><p>That may not end well.

I guess that will have to wait for the &quot;Fuller Self-Driving&quot;, or perhaps &quot;Fullest Self-Driving&quot; software?

This is misinformation. Tesla continued the letter with: &quot;Please note that Tesla’s development of true autonomous features (SAE Levels 3+) will follow our iterative process (development, validation, early release, etc.) and any such features will not be released to the general public until we have fully validated them and received any required regulatory permits or approvals.&quot;

I am all for this discussion but it seems that we keep seeing the same points being posted here as filtered through the lens of the blogosphere and news outlets over and over. A few days ago it was the jalopnik article. Prior to that it was thdrive article. I’m sure others as well. I skimmed the article and I am not seeing any new information about full self driving. The less generous part of my personality thinks that this is fed by a short seller to all the aggregators.<p>I have commented about this already [1] so I won’t repeat myself but as a genuine question- why is this article being posted? I would imagine that the OP has seen the previous articles and the fact that they were flagged. What is the goal here?<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=26436143" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=26436143</a>

So is this actually confusing anyone and causing danger? We can figure it out. One of the following must be true:<p>- It is confusing people, but the tech is actually pretty much autonomous, so we haven&#x27;t noticed.<p>- It is confusing people, and Tesla drivers are dying in crashes at a rate massively in excess of other car manufacturers.<p>- Everybody knows that you still have to pay attention, and they don&#x27;t give the car total control.<p>Option 1 is almost certainly not true since it requires the existence of near perfect self driving tech, which is generally agreed not to exist. Option 2 is definitely not true, because if Tesla drivers were dying at a much greater rate than drivers of other cars, this would be completely obvious and impossible to hide. So that leaves us with option 3, and all the repeated complaining about this is sanctimonious BS.

This letter is being massively overhyped. The fact that the self driving package requires a lot of driver supervision is pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives a Tesla.

I&#x27;m still waiting to know when one of their cars severely injures or kills someone on the side of the road, cycling or running, etc. if the person who wrote the bad code goes to prison, the supervisor who failed to audit it, or the person who made the sensor or the person who pushed the button to activate the feature.

All the people I asked enjoy the car very much. So for the exception of that sad marketing twist the product seems to be quite enjoyable. I still can&#x27;t afford it though :)

im probably going to get downvoted for posting this video but curious how folks on HN who have Teslas or shares in Tesla will react<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=cPMvQphJQiE" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=cPMvQphJQiE</a><p>there are many many more<p>also I&#x27;d like to learn how a Robotaxi service would work and whether any insurance company would be willing to underwrite it.

Tesla is saying that &quot;Full Self-Driving Beta&quot; isn&#x27;t done and can&#x27;t be trusted yet. When it is, they&#x27;ll remove the Beta label and send in a new form.<p>A lot of articles writing about very little because riling up the anti-Tesla sentiment is a good way to get clicks.