[fastball]

That's a reasonable stance, but we're talking about FSD here. Your opinion about whether that's possible at all isn't particularly germane to whether or not Tesla or Waymo is closer.

And yes, I would say my bar is a little lower than yours seems to be, as hinted at in my first comment. As long as the system can respond with a solution that is equivalent or better than what a human driver would do the vast majority of the time, I see that as FSD.

[ra7]

Your lower bar is reasonable (though hard to quantify), but that's not what Tesla is promising and marketing when they say L5. They can't say L5 and then qualify it with "works only vast majority of the time", at which point it's no longer L5.

It seems like your bar is lower for Tesla (you're okay if it doesn't work always, yet you consider it true self driving), but extremely high for Waymo - who are actually fully driverless - just because it's geofenced. Sounds like you're not applying the same standards to both.

[fastball]

It's the same standard: Successful FSD is measured by automated driving (without any human intervention) that is equal to or better than humans (as measured by accidents/fatalities per mile) anywhere humans typically drive (e.g. where infrastructure for driving cars has been deliberately constructed).

Maybe it looks like my standard is tailored to fit Tesla, but it's actually not, it is merely the behavior I would want if I ever purchased a self-driving car. Specifically, I want a self-driving RV where I can program in anywhere I want to go and it will take me there.

I think Tesla's approach can easily get us there in my lifetime. I'm skeptical of Waymo's.

[ubercore]

What counts as "vast majority"? Does the severity of failures in those cases where it doesn't match a human matter?

It's still pretty vague

[fastball]

Check my parallel reply for a bit of clarification.