Honest question: did Tesla in the past promise that FSD would be unsupervised? My based-on-nothing memory is that they weren't promising that you wouldn't have to sit in the driver's seat, or that your steering wheel would collect dust. Arguing against myself: they did talk about Teslas going off to park themselves and returning, but that's a fairly limited use case. Maybe in the robotaxi descriptions?

My memory was more that you'd be able to get into (the driver's seat of) your Tesla in downtown Los Angeles, tell it you want to go to the Paris hotel in Vegas, and expect generally not to have to do anything to get there. But not guaranteed nothing.

▲

toast0 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Is Full just a catch word for actually not full now?

Full Speed USB is 12Mbps, nobody wants a Full Speed USB data transfer.

Full Self Driving requires supervision. Clearly, even Tesla understands the implication of their name, or they wouldn't have renamed it Full Self Driving Supervised... They should probably have been calling it Supervised Self Driving since the beginning.

▲

gcanyon 5 days ago | parent [-]

Autopilot on a plane requires a pilot in the cockpit. Does that make it "not auto"?

I get that there are many who rush to defend Musk/Tesla. I'm not one of them.

I was just caught off guard by the headline. To me, changing “Full Self-Driving” to “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” doesn't merit the headline "Tesla changes meaning of ‘Full Self-Driving’, gives up on promise of autonomy".

Again, to me "Full Self-Driving" never meant you would retro-fit your Tesla to remove the steering wheel, nor even set it for someplace and go to sleep. To me, it meant not needing to have your hands on the steering wheel and being able to have a conversation while maintaining some sort of situational awareness, although not necessarily keeping your eyes fully on the road for the more monotonous parts of a journey.

As others have pointed out, Tesla/Musk sometimes claimed more than that, but the vast majority of their statements re: FSD hew closer to what I said above. At least I think so -- no one yet has posted something where claims of more than the above are explicit and in the majority.

	▲	toast0 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Autopilot on a plane requires a pilot in the cockpit. Does that make it "not auto"? Autopilot in a plane generally maintains heading and altitude. It certainly can do that with or without a pilot in the cockpit, and you hear about incidents from time to time where the pilot is incapacitated and the autopilot keeps the heading and altitude until fuel run out. Keeping heading and altitude is insufficient to operate a plane, of course; Tesla's choice of the word Autopilot was also problematic, because the larger market of drivers doesn't necessarily understand the limitations of aviation autopilot and many people thought the system is more capable than it actually is; an aviation style autopilot wouldn't be much help on the road, maintaining heading in that way isn't actually helpful when roads are not completely straight, maintaining speed is sometimes useful but that's been called cruise control for decades. (Some flight automation systems can do waypoints, and autoland is a thing, but afaik, it's not all put together where you put the whole thing in at once and chill, nor would that be a good idea). > To me, it meant not needing to have your hands on the steering wheel and being able to have a conversation while maintaining some sort of situational awareness, although not necessarily keeping your eyes fully on the road for the more monotonous parts of a journey. I mean, that's sort of what the product is, although there's real safety concerns about ability for humans to context switch and intervene properly. I see how that's supervised self-driving, but not how it's full self-driving. If I paid 90% of your invoice and said paid in full, that doesn't make it paid in full.

▲

abduhl 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The [2016 Tesla promotional] video carries a tagline saying: “The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.”

https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-video-promoting-sel...

	▲	gcanyon 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Well there you go. It seems clear that most of what Tesla has said is compatible with the application of the word "supervised" without really changing the meaning much. But a few statements, and the overall implication, very much contradict that.

▲

scoopertrooper 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Musk promised unsupervised driving being right around the corner so many times it became a joke.

https://youtu.be/B4rdISpXigM

	▲	gcanyon 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Thx for this! The one that stands out is the guy who says "my grandmother who doesn't speak the language and doesn't drive" -- that speaks to unsupervised. That said, most of rest don't seem incompatible with "supervised" To be clear, this is obviously a reframing from the implications Musk has made. But I still don't see adding "supervised" to the description as that big a shift for most of the use cases that have been presented in the past.

▲

herbturbo 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

In 2016 Musk said you’d be able to drive from LA to NYC without touching the steering wheel once “within 2 years”. He’s been making untrue statements about Tesla FSD for a decade.

▲

gcanyon 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, I know he said this. Setting aside the two years aspect, which obviously didn't pan out/was a lie if we're being harsh, I don't see this language as incompatible with the current change -- they're adding "supervised" to the description. He didn't say you'd be able to go to sleep in the back seat. "able to" is not the same as "guaranteed to." Believe me, I'm not a fan, but I just don't see this language as that big of a shift.

▲

bmitc 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

And people keep buying the stock and buying the cars.

	▲	gcanyon 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, that's a bad bet unless Tesla becomes much more than a car company.