81–90 of 286 posts
That Elon is riding this wave amidst the transparency of the whole thing is the funniest part. It's like watching people lose money at the "three cup" game but the cups are clear.
As far as I understand, those Robotaxis are only available within Austin so far. That is slow city traffic, the number of miles per ride is very small. However the number for human drivers seem to take all kind of roads into respect. Of course, highways are the roads where you drive most of the distance at the least risk for an accident. Has this been taken into account for the evaluation? It would be ironic that peo…
The comparison isn't really like-for-like. NHTSA SGO AV reports can include very minor, low-speed contact events that would often never show up as police-reported crashes for human drivers, meaning the Tesla crash count may be drawing from a broader category than the human baseline it's being compared to. There's also a denominator problem. The mileage figure appears to be cumulative miles "as of November," while the…
The comparison isn't really like-for-like. NHTSA SGO AV reports can include very minor, low-speed contact events that would often never show up as police-reported crashes for human drivers, meaning the Tesla crash count may be drawing from a broader category than the human baseline it's being compared to. There's also a denominator problem. The mileage figure appears to be cumulative miles "as of November," while the…
TFA also does a comparison with other self-driving car companies, which you acknowledge, but dismiss: however, we can't harmonize crash definitions and reporting practices as you would like, because Tesla is obfuscating their data.
TFA's main point is that we can't really know what this data means because Tesla keep their data secret, but others like Waymo disclose everything they can, and are more transparent about what happened and why.
TFA is actually saying Tesla should open up their data to allow for better analysis and comparison, because at the moment their current reporting practice make them look crazy bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this is why people bought Tesla. Musk promised that the car is automatic.
Don’t be silly. Why would a reasonable person think “Full Self Driving” meant that a car would fully drive itself?
FSD is not perfect, but it is everyday amazing and useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elon is aware that Tesla insane market valuation would crash 10x if it stays a car company. There isn't enough money and most importantly margin in the car industry to warrant such a valuation, so he has to pivot away from cars into the next thing . Just to make an example of how risky it is to be a car company for Tesla. In 2025 Toyota has had: 3.5 times Tesla's revenue, 8 times the net income and twice the margin.…
The best part of all of this is given their history, and the state of robotaxies as a whole, they will fail, and Tesla will crash. And it'll be a great day. The hype and obscene over valuation of them is utterly moronic. Look how much longer, and more experience Waymo has and they still have multiple issues a week popping up online, and thats with running them in a very small well mapped and planned out area. Musk wa…
As long as there are still safety drivers, the data doesn't really tell you if the AI is any good. Unless you had reliable data about the number of interventions by the driver, which I assume Tesla doesn't provide. Still damning that the data is so bad even then. Good data wouldn't tell us anything, the bad data likely means the AI is bad unless they were spectacularly unlucky. But since Tesla redacts all information…
> As long as there are still safety drivers, the data doesn't really tell you if the AI is any good. Unless you had reliable data about the number of interventions by the driver, which I assume Tesla doesn't provide. Sorry that does not compute. It tells you exactly if the AI is any good, as, despite the fact that there were safety drivers on board, 9 crashes happened. Which implies that more crashes would have happe…