[ImPostingOnHN]

Never heard of "universal A-to-B navigation", that sounds like google maps.

Is it fully self-driving, like Waymo? If not, then I'd lump it in with anything else that isn't fully self-driving. Either I can safely and legally nap while commuting or I cannot. Something that requires me to actively supervise the car and intervene as necessary is not self-driving, it is drive assist.

> "What competitors say" is quite possibly the worst anecdata you could find as a broad rule, no?

The post you're responding to is not simply repeating what competitors say, it is speaking of using data to avoid trusting what anybody says. Thus, this isn't a fair comparison. It should also be noted that you yourself suggested that the poster use anecdata.

That said, what tesla says about themselves is even worse than what tesla competitors say, if only because tesla is infamously untrustworthy, and their competitors are not.

But again: don't listen to what tesla et al say they will someday do, compare the data for tesla's drive assist vs tesla competitors' drive assist.

[fastball]

- I agree you should follow the data. That is the point I made from the beginning. Elon Musk / Tesla saying anything is not a sign of progress (or lack thereof).

- No, Teslas are not fully self-driving like Waymo. Alas, Waymo isn't the only competitor. The parent comment I replied to was lumping all driving assist together, as if Ford BlueCruise, which is highway-only driving, is comparable to current iterations of Tesla FSD, which has the capability to take you from point A to point B without a geofence ("universal A-to-B navigation") and with zero driver intervention required. That includes the ability to handle traffic lights, stop signs, roundabouts, pedestrians and cyclists, etc. Basically none of the other driver assists claim that capability (besides Waymo), and Waymo very notably has not allowed their cars to drive on highways in the majority of jurisdictions in which they operate (I believe LA is the only highway driving being done at the moment for Waymo). Tesla FSD however remains unreliable, which is why they haven't launched a full driverless service like Waymo, but Tesla FSD has more (unreliable) capabilities than any of their competitors, Waymo included. Reliability is super important though, which is why I'd say Waymo is clearly ahead.

- Not all anecdotal evidence is created equal. I suggested a specific type of anecdata – asking a friend (read: someone you trust who you think has broadly good judgement) who actually has a Tesla with the FSD package a question like "have you seen significant improvement in the self-driving capabilities of this car?" or "have you had any drives where your Tesla took your from home to where you needed to go, with zero interventions on your part?". Asking a GM employee "is your competitor doing a better job than you" is a very different type of anecdata and not something I personally would rely on. Mind you, I think asking a friend about their personal experience isn't great either, and that the other measures I suggested are much better, but it is still much better than "competitors say".

[ImPostingOnHN]

> The parent comment I replied to was lumping all driving assist together, as if Ford BlueCruise, which is highway-only driving, is comparable to current iterations of Tesla FSD...

You're saying "as if X is comparable" as if it is not comparable, but I and the other poster are saying it is comparable.

> ...which has the capability to take you from point A to point B without a geofence ("universal A-to-B navigation") and with zero driver intervention required.

Tesla "FSD" can absolutely, categorically, not do that. It requires the driver to constantly pay attention, to supervise, to mind the car, and importantly, to intervene when "FSD" fails. As I understand it, tesla will literally ban you from the "FSD" feature if you actually use it as FSD (hands off wheel, etc).

> Tesla FSD has more (unreliable) capabilities than any of their competitors

Unless it can actually fully self-drive (read: not require anything from the passenger), that just makes it a slightly more glorified lane assist, in my eyes.

> I suggested a specific type of anecdata

The request was over-specified: A tesla owner is far less likely to provide accurate, unbiased anecdata than an employee of a competitor, so I can see why the other poster volunteered the latter -- it is much better than "tesla owner says".

[fastball]

You can also compare apples and oranges – not sure what your point is.

Tesla FSD absolutely, categorically, can do that, assuming we agree that "intervention" means "take over for the car". Teslas are driving people from their starting point to their destination without any driver intervention, every single day. Are you being willfully obtuse when it comes to the distinction I am making between capability and consistency? Yes, you need to have both for a robotaxi service or to call the vehicle truly "driverless". If you don't have that reliability/consistency, it is indeed reckless to not have someone in the driver's seat.

If you really can't see the distinction, your eyes are blind. It's the difference between being driven by a toddler and by your alcoholic uncle. Your uncle has the capability, but he is frequently drunk so you wouldn't trust him to be your chauffeur. A toddler doesn't have the capability in the first place. Sober up your uncle though and the world is your oyster. But the toddler needs to do a lot of growing before it'll get you anywhere.

> A tesla owner is far less likely to provide accurate, unbiased anecdata than an employee of a competitor, so I can see why the other poster volunteered the latter

This is silly. I wouldn't apply that standard to anything else, and I doubt you would either. Who would you trust more to give you honest feedback about a Vitamix blender – your friend with good judgement who owns one, or an employee at KitchenAid?

[ImPostingOnHN]

Your latest reply amounts to once again claiming that myself and another poster are both wrong and you are right about "FSD" being incomparable to lane assist and other such features. The conclusion to draw here, from the majority, is that there is a chance that you might not be the best judge of the matter. Calling "blind" everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion of incomparability doesn't help your case.

> assuming we agree that "intervention" means "take over for the car"

I don't think that's a safe assumption. If something requires my full attention and body movement for the entire drive, I would not consider that FSD.

> This is silly. I wouldn't apply that standard to anything else, and I doubt you would either. Who would you trust more to give you honest feedback about a Vitamix blender – your friend with good judgement who owns one, or an employee at KitchenAid?

Assuming good faith here, that you genuinely aren't aware of this, but I regret to inform you that the biased fanaticism of tesla owners is unmatched by nearly any other car company (maybe ferrari is a rival there), or indeed nearly any company at all. Thus, given 2 people, one a tesla owner, the other an owner of a tesla competitor, the latter is more likely to be an unbiased source on teslas or vehicles in general than the former. I thought the last paragraph of my previous post explained this, but here we are, so I'll explain better next time.

[fastball]

No, I don't think we can assume good faith, since you are clearly not interested in establishing any reasonable base from which to discuss. You've basically just been making meaningless semantic arguments, which are 1. besides the point and 2. not even good semantic arguments.

- Saying "these are not comparable" is not colloquially the same as saying "these things are literally incomparable". Everything is of course comparable. But you should actually compare them if you want to play this game. Explain to me how the systems are in the same league – you have yet to do so. Instead, you keep repeating they are comparable as if that is all you need to do. If it helps, I will rephrase to say "these things are not equivalent", so that you can stop making what is apparently just a semantic argument. In fact, I did do that in a previous comment, when I said "X and Y are not the same", and that is clearly the point I have been making this whole time (clear to anyone not acting in bad faith).

- "one other commenter agrees with me, therefore you are clearly wrong, not because I've made a coherent argument, or because you are factually wrong, but because one person (might) agree with me". Hahaha, nice one. I needed a good chuckle.

- being ready and paying attention are not what it means to intervene. That is why there are phrases like "be ready to intervene". Once again you seem to be trying to make a pointless semantic argument (and the semantics aren't even on your side). I'm happy to use whatever word you want to describe the behavior of "not moving the wheel or pressing the brake/accelerator pedal". Intervene is a great word to use here and what everyone else uses, but if you are struggling with it we can use whatever word you want, because word choice is besides the point.

- Tesla FSD is a product name. You continuing to put it in scare quotes serves little purpose besides making you type more characters and apparently confusing yourself. I've already agreed that a system which requires you to pay attention and be ready to intervene is not driverless. That was never a point I was making. Me using the name of the product is not some sneaky attempt to pretend they have achieved autonomy. It is just a product name.

- As far as I can remember, I didn't say "some random Tesla owner". I also didn't say "ask someone holding a bunch of TSLA calls". You can just say you don't have any friends who own a Tesla – no need to go around in circles and/or pretend I was saying something that I wasn't.

[ImPostingOnHN]

Your latest reply again amounts to once again claiming that myself and another poster are both wrong and you are right about "FSD" being incomparable to lane assist and other such features. The conclusion to draw here, from the majority, is that there is a chance that you might not be the best judge of the matter.

In short, your opinions have been heard, and so have the opinions of the other person you were responding to, and having heard both, I judge that the other poster's are more convincing than yours. You are, of course, free to re-re-re-assert your opinions even more assertively, but that tactic is, to say the least, unconvincing, and asserting that everyone who disagrees with you must have no friends with a tesla does not help your case either.