Elon: FSD Beta tweets

[Daniel in SD]

I mean if you wanna just make up a definition with nothing to support it that Elon or Tesla ever actually said- knock yourself out.

Even sillier since the wipers are also beta. So is basic AP. So is TACC. None of those are intended to ever be "unsupervised" except maybe the wipers?

FSD was sold from 2016 through early 2019 as intended to be unsupervised... in ~3/2019 they changed the description of features to an explicitly L2 system- but did not change the name at all.

It's clear now that a Tesla feature being beta does not mean it will ever leave beta. In 2019 the FSD definition was changed because many people were assuming that they were promised a non-beta version of FSD. The caginess is just because selling software that may never go out of beta is unusual. Note that they still leave open the possibility of unsupervised use even in the most recent definition. FSD was always intended to be robotaxi capable.

We know from Elon's statements that there is supervised FSD and unsupervised FSD.
We know that FSD beta is supervised FSD.
Which makes more sense?

1. There will be non-beta versions of supervised FSD and unsupervised FSD and they will both be called FSD.
2. Supervised FSD is the beta version of unsupervised FSD.

 

[Knightshade]

It's clear now that a Tesla feature being beta does not mean it will ever leave beta.

What does that have to do with your made-up definition of "non beta" meaning autonomous- which is obviously disproven by things never meant to be autonomous being called beta by Tesla?

In 2019 the FSD definition was changed because many people were assuming that they were promised a non-beta version of FSD. The caginess is just because selling software that may never go out of beta is unusual.

Again this makes no actual sense since "beta" has no legal meaning of any kind

They changed the definition to limit their legal liability if they were never able to deliver actual autonomous driving. Beta or not doesn't enter into it.

In fact the fsdb branch didn't even exist when the change was made.

Note that they still leave open the possibility of unsupervised use even in the most recent definition. FSD was always intended to be robotaxi capable.

Sure, but again that has nothing, at all, to do with the beta label.

We know from Elon's statements that there is supervised FSD and unsupervised FSD.

Well... not quite... we know the current FSD product requires supervision.

And that aspirationally Tesla has previously sold a product they hope to someday deliver that would be unsupervised, but does not actually exist right now.


But again 'supervised' has nothing to do with beta or not- since they use beta for multiple things never intended to ever be unsupervised.

We know that FSD beta is supervised FSD.
Which makes more sense?

1. There will be non-beta versions of supervised FSD and unsupervised FSD and they will both be called FSD.
2. Supervised FSD is the beta version of unsupervised FSD.

None of that makes any sense either way.

There's just FSD. It's whatever the most capable thing Tesla can offer safely at any given time. Right now it's supervised. It might always remain so on current HW.

And just like a bunch of features it currently has a beta label on it.

If or when they remove that label tells you nothing about the level of supervision required (since again, multiple things never to be unsupervised have that label).

We've already passed multiple previous milestones Elon suggested they'd remove the beta label once they reached- and it's still there. And still has no actual meaning.

 

[Daniel in SD]

What does that have to do with your made-up definition of "non beta" meaning autonomous- which is obviously disproven by things never meant to be autonomous being called beta by Tesla?




Again this makes no actual sense since "beta" has no legal meaning of any kind

They changed the definition to limit their legal liability if they were never able to deliver actual autonomous driving. Beta or not doesn't enter into it.

In fact the fsdb branch didn't even exist when the change was made.




Sure, but again that has nothing, at all, to do with the beta label.




Well... not quite... we know the current FSD product requires supervision.

And that aspirationally Tesla has previously sold a product they hope to someday deliver that would be unsupervised, but does not actually exist right now.


But again 'supervised' has nothing to do with beta or not- since they use beta for multiple things never intended to ever be unsupervised.





None of that makes any sense either way.

There's just FSD. It's whatever the most capable thing Tesla can offer safely at any given time. Right now it's supervised. It might always remain so on current HW.

And just like a bunch of features it currently has a beta label on it.

If or when they remove that label tells you nothing about the level of supervision required (since again, multiple things never to be unsupervised have that label).

We've already passed multiple previous milestones Elon suggested they'd remove the beta label once they reached- and it's still there. And still has no actual meaning.

I'm not saying that other Tesla features will be autonomous when they are out of beta; they were never intended to be autonomous.
Unsupervised FSD is the design intent of V12. It will not be out of beta until it is unsupervised.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1727484899374899687?s=20

It makes perfect logical sense. Obviously there is a possibility that V12, like every previous version, will never be safe to operate without supervision and therefore will never get out of beta.

 

[Knightshade]

I'm not saying that other Tesla features will be autonomous when they are out of beta; they were never intended to be autonomous.

Then why do you think removing the beta label has anything to do with level of autonomy?

Unsupervised FSD is the design intent of V12.

It was also the intent of every previous version. It was the intent of the originial does-actually-nothing-right-now FSD option sold since late 2016.

Each time they rewrote it they thought THIS ONE WILL DO IT- and have been wrong every time so far. See Elons repeated "autonomy by end of year" or "by next year" promises going on 6-7 years now.

None of which has anything to do with the beta label.

It will not be out of beta until it is unsupervised.

Elon previously said autopilot would be out of beta when they had 1 billion miles of data, despite the fact it was never intended to be unsupervised.

Of course they're way past that now and it's still beta.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1727484899374899687?s=20

Nothing in the tweet says anything at all about beta.

The one time he DID mention it in the last 6+ months was when he wrote:

"Version 12 won’t be beta"

Which, of course, also turned out to be untrue as it's already been released to a small # of non-employees and is still beta.... (and he told us recently on the call it'd be rolling out to more in the next few weeks- and will still be labeled beta there too as you'll see)

It makes perfect logical sense.

Only if you invent your own meaning for beta that nobody ever claimed and ignore how it's used on all other Tesla products.

Obviously there is a possibility that V12, like every previous version, will never be safe to operate without supervision and therefore will never get out of beta.

It's also possible they release a >L2 version and still call it beta.

Because it's not a word that legally means anything.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Then why do you think removing the beta label has anything to do with level of autonomy?

Because the ultimate goal of FSD is to be unsupervised. If they were to take away the beta tag before it was ready to be used unsupervised that would be very confusing. What would they call the unsupervised version?

Elon previously said autopilot would be out of beta when they had 1 billion miles of data, despite the fact it was never intended to be unsupervised.

Of course they're way past that now and it's still beta.

I agree that removing beta tag from Autopilot has nothing to do with supervision because it was never intended to be unsupervised.

Nothing in the tweet says anything at all about beta.

The one time he DID mention it in the last 6+ months was when he wrote:

"Version 12 won’t be beta"

Which, of course, also turned out to be untrue as it's already been released to a small # of non-employees and is still beta.... (and he told us recently on the call it'd be rolling out to more in the next few weeks- and will still be labeled beta there too as you'll see)

It would make no sense to never have a beta version of V12. What he is saying is that V12 will at some point in the future not be beta. This is consistent with his yearly prediction that FSD will be ready for robotaxis. Supervised FSD is already far safer than a human yet FSD is still in beta. You imagine that there is some other metric that Tesla will use to determine when FSD is no longer beta. The obvious reading of the tweets (xeets?) is that V12 won't be beta when V12 far exceeds human safety even when unsupervised. I don't see a more likely interpretation.

Only if you invent your own meaning for beta that nobody ever claimed and ignore how it's used on all other Tesla products.

My definition is 100% consistent. FSD will be out of beta when the design intent of the system is achieved.

It's also possible they release a >L2 version and still call it beta.

Because it's not a word that legally means anything.

I suppose they could. I don't think they will.

 

[Knightshade]

Because the ultimate goal of FSD is to be unsupervised. If they were to take away the beta tag before it was ready to be used unsupervised that would be very confusing.

Why?

The beta label has literally nothing to do with being supervised or not.

What would they call the unsupervised version?

The same thing they call the supervised version. FSD. It just would no longer require supervision.

That wouldn't be confusing to anyone unless they kept offering BOTH versions- which they wouldn't.

It would make no sense to never have a beta version of V12. What he is saying is that V12 will at some point in the future not be beta. This is consistent with his yearly prediction that FSD will be ready for robotaxis.

So--- potentially imaginary and a thing that won't actually happen. Ok.

Nothing in his actual words tie the beta label to level of supervision though.

Supervised FSD is already far safer than a human yet FSD is still in beta. You imagine that there is some other metric that Tesla will use to determine when FSD is no longer beta.

Since it's a word with no actual meaning the "metric" is "whenever tesla feels like dropping the label-- if they ever do"

The obvious reading of the tweets (xeets?) is that V12 won't be beta when V12 far exceeds human safety even when unsupervised. I don't see a more likely interpretation.

I mean-- if you take two different tweets and pretend they were part of the same tweet-- sure.

But that's not what happened.

My definition is 100% consistent. FSD will be out of beta when the design intent of the system is achieved.

AP has done what its design intent said for years now. Why is it still labeled beta?

Same question for TACC which is also labeled beta but has met its design intent for years.

it's almost like removing beta has nothing, at all, to do with reaching the design intent of the system or something and you just made that up.

 

[terranx]

AP has done what its design intent said for years now. Why is it still labeled beta?

Because it still sucks and can make asinine decisions

 

[sleepydoc]

I mean if you wanna just make up a definition with nothing to support it that Elon or Tesla ever actually said- knock yourself out.

Even sillier since the wipers are also beta. So is basic AP. So is TACC. None of those are intended to ever be "unsupervised" except maybe the wipers?

FSD was sold from 2016 through early 2019 as intended to be unsupervised... in ~3/2019 they changed the description of features to an explicitly L2 system- but did not change the name at all.

What everyone really cares about is level 3. Being able to have the car drive itself while you watch is fine and all but level 3 autonomy is the major step forward. Part of that step is insurance and regulatory clearance an they will never clear a system labeled as ‘beta’

 

[KArnold]

What everyone really cares about is level 3.

I'm not sure Tesla thinks the financial liability outweighs the financial gain right now for L3 so they will skip it. L4/L5 is still the goal, HW/SW willing. I'm not expecting L3 from Tesla ever.

I would love to have my insurance cover an L3 system but that seems impossible with our legal system.

 

[terranx]

I'm not sure Tesla thinks the financial liability outweighs the financial gain right now for L3 so they will skip it. L4/L5 is still the goal, HW/SW willing. I'm not expecting L3 from Tesla ever.

I would love to have my insurance cover an L3 system but that seems impossible with our legal system.

They’ll never reach L4 on currently produced cars. I’m doubtful they’re even technically capable of L3.

 

[Knightshade]

What everyone really cares about is level 3. Being able to have the car drive itself while you watch is fine and all but level 3 autonomy is the major step forward. Part of that step is insurance and regulatory clearance an they will never clear a system labeled as ‘beta’

This thinking continues to be complete nonsense.

Tesla can put L3 cars on the road today if they want, in like a dozen US states, and label it beta-bobidy-boo if they wish, and it requires no regulatory approval at all

This is an imaginary red herring and I'm baffled people even still try the argument.

As to insurance- Tesla already underwrites car insurance in many states- some of which overlap with the ability to deploy self driving cars without needing anyones "approval"-- so that, too, is a factually untrue objection.


The only thing preventing Tesla from deploying L3 (or L4, or L5) self driving right now and labeling it anything they want is they don't actually have any safe L3 or better system to deploy.

I'm not sure Tesla thinks the financial liability outweighs the financial gain right now for L3 so they will skip it. L4/L5 is still the goal, HW/SW willing. I'm not expecting L3 from Tesla ever.

I would love to have my insurance cover an L3 system but that seems impossible with our legal system.

Mercedes has an L3 system on the road right now in at least a couple of US states and seems to have no problem with their cars being insured.

 

[KArnold]

Mercedes has an L3 system on the road right now in at least a couple of US states and seems to have no problem with their cars being insured.

True. Different business model.

 

[terranx]

True. Different business model.

Or Mercedes just makes a better self driving system.

 

[sleepydoc]

This thinking continues to be complete nonsense.

Tesla can put L3 cars on the road today if they want, in like a dozen US states, and label it beta-bobidy-boo if they wish, and it requires no regulatory approval at all

This is an imaginary red herring and I'm baffled people even still try the argument.

As to insurance- Tesla already underwrites car insurance in many states- some of which overlap with the ability to deploy self driving cars without needing anyones "approval"-- so that, too, is a factually untrue objection.


The only thing preventing Tesla from deploying L3 (or L4, or L5) self driving right now and labeling it anything they want is they don't actually have any safe L3 or better system to deploy.





Mercedes has an L3 system on the road right now in at least a couple of US states and seems to have no problem with their cars being insured.

Nonsense? Mercedes needed to obtain regulatory approval for its level 3 system. What makes you think Tesla wouldn’t? Tesla may underwrite insurance but that’s a far cry from insuring a car operating autonomously and I can guarantee you the question of liability will come up with any level 3 system. (By the way, Mercedes has accepted liability for accidents with their level 3 system so that’s how they addressed the issue.)

No, it’s not an imaginary red herring, it’s a very real issue.

 

[sleepydoc]

I'm not sure Tesla thinks the financial liability outweighs the financial gain right now for L3 so they will skip it. L4/L5 is still the goal, HW/SW willing. I'm not expecting L3 from Tesla ever.

I would love to have my insurance cover an L3 system but that seems impossible with our legal system.

Possibly but I can guarantee that an actual level 3 system would be a boon to sales.

Or Mercedes just makes a better self driving system.

I think Merceds just had the guts and financial backing to move forward. IME, AP functions perfectly within the constraints MB has placed on their system.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Why?

The beta label has literally nothing to do with being supervised or not.




The same thing they call the supervised version. FSD. It just would no longer require supervision.

That wouldn't be confusing to anyone unless they kept offering BOTH versions- which they wouldn't.





So--- potentially imaginary and a thing that won't actually happen. Ok.

Nothing in his actual words tie the beta label to level of supervision though.




Since it's a word with no actual meaning the "metric" is "whenever tesla feels like dropping the label-- if they ever do"



I mean-- if you take two different tweets and pretend they were part of the same tweet-- sure.

But that's not what happened.





AP has done what its design intent said for years now. Why is it still labeled beta?

Same question for TACC which is also labeled beta but has met its design intent for years.

it's almost like removing beta has nothing, at all, to do with reaching the design intent of the system or something and you just made that up.

Both tweets are about V12. V12 won’t be beta and it will be safer than a human when unsupervised.
The great thing about this argument is that neither of us will be proven correct. There is an almost zero percent chance of V12 being non beta and an almost zero percent chance of V12 being safer than a human without supervision. I suppose you have a slightly higher chance of being proven correct as removing the beta label from supervised FSD doesn’t require a breakthrough in artificial intelligence.

 

[Knightshade]

Nonsense? Mercedes needed to obtain regulatory approval for its level 3 system

In california they did.

In Nevada they did not (though I wouldn't put it past reporters and press released to get the facts on this wrong- but no worries, I prove it below)

In Nevada the only thing Mercedes did was "submit a form"

Nobody even had to "approve" that form.

Prior to registering an autonomous vehicle in Nevada, the manufacturer or developer must self-certify to the DMV that they are in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 482A and/or 482B of the Nevada Revised Statutes.

Tesla would need to fill out a form and mail it to the DMV. No "regulator" has to "approve" anything at all.

You can read the from yourself here:

https://dmv.nv.gov/pdfforms/obl326a.pdf

But basically it's just saying "Our car self drives and is insured. Trust us Bro!"

And that's it.

And it works the same way in a number of other US states.

No "regulator" has to "approve" anything.


Another example, from another state where Tesla issues insurance and no regulatory approval is needed at all - Arizona (which is ONE of the several reasons for Waymo having done so much of their operations here)

Autonomous Vehicles Testing and Operating WITHOUT Driver | Department of Transportation

Autonomous Vehicles - Testing and Operating in the State of Arizona Testing or Operating WITHOUT trained Safety Driver present in the vehicle A fully autonomous vehicle may operate on public roads without a human driver only if a person submits both:

azdot.gov

You have to submit two forms.
One says you have a law enforcement interaction plan (basically "What will your automated driving system do if a cop tries to pull it over, or it's in an accident". No "regulator" needs to "approve" it-- it just has to exist.

One says your car self drives, is insured, and can follow the traffic laws. ". No "regulator" needs to "approve" it-- it just has to exist.



So as I said- your claim is nonsense.

. What makes you think Tesla wouldn’t?

Wouldn't have to wait for regulatory approval?

An understanding of the actual law makes me think that.

There is no such thing in like a dozen US states. You just self-certify your car self drives and is insured- that's it.

Tesla may underwrite insurance but that’s a far cry from insuring a car operating autonomously

If Tesla is underwriting the coverage then it literally is not different.

and I can guarantee you the question of liability will come up with any level 3 system. (By the way, Mercedes has accepted liability for accidents with their level 3 system so that’s how they addressed the issue.)

And it's how Tesla would too.

Because legally the car is the driver at L3 or higher-that's the defining characteristic of L3 and higher-- that the vehicle, not the human, is performing the entire driving task.... so Tesla would not have a choice about it.

No, it’s not an imaginary red herring, it’s a very real issue.

It factually is not.

If Tesla wants to put an L3 car on the road right now they can do it a dozen or so US states without needing regulatory approval from anyone

And could insure them themselves (if they're otherwise authorized to issue insurance in that state- as they are in Nevada for example).

Your claim is simply, provably, false.

 

[Knightshade]

Both tweets are about V12. V12 won’t be beta

Except V12 is already in non-employee hands.

And still beta.

and it will be safer than a human when unsupervised.

Just like each previous version Elon made that promise about once it was unsupervised.

Despite it never, ever, ending up unsupervised in any previous version.

But again that has nothing to do with the beta label.

The great thing about this argument is that neither of us will be proven correct.

I mean, the "v12 won't be beta" thing is already disproven.

So is your earlier claim being beta or not has anything to do with autonomy.

There is an almost zero percent chance of V12 being non beta and an almost zero percent chance of V12 being safer than a human without supervision. I suppose you have a slightly higher chance of being proven correct as removing the beta label from supervised FSD doesn’t require a breakthrough in artificial intelligence.

Removing the beta label requires nothing at all other than Tesla deciding to.

Since it has no actual meaning.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Except V12 is already in non-employee hands.

And still beta.



Just like each previous version Elon made that promise about once it was unsupervised.

Despite it never, ever, ending up unsupervised in any previous version.

But again that has nothing to do with the beta label.




I mean, the "v12 won't be beta" thing is already disproven.

So is your earlier claim being beta or not has anything to do with autonomy.




Removing the beta label requires nothing at all other than Tesla deciding to.

Since it has no actual meaning.

Your interpretation of the “V12 won’t by beta” is wrong. He meant that there will be a non-beta version, not that there will never be a beta version. After all there was already a beta version when he tweeted it!
Of course he could be wrong but that will only be proven when they stop development of V12.

 

[Knightshade]

Your interpretation of the “V12 won’t by beta” is wrong. He meant that there will be a non-beta version, not that there will never be a beta version.

I'm not "interpreting" anything. I'm using literally what he said

You are the one adding a bunch of text beyond his actual writing to reveal his SECRET HIDDEN MEANING you imagine exists.

Of course he could be wrong but that will only be proven when they stop development of V12.

I mean, he's been wrong every other time he's claimed they'd remove the beta tag, going back years and years- so why not this time?

But again, removing it or leaving it, either way, has no legal meaning of any kind