This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tesla Autopilot article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Tesla Motors was copied or moved into Tesla Autopilot with this edit on 11 September 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The contents of the Tesla Dojo page were merged into Tesla Autopilot on 17 October 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
I found the table row labeled "Freeway Interchanges" to be less than informative. First, "Freeway Interchanges" is not a function. The table doesn't say what the car is supposed to do at a freeway interchange, nor does the article have a section on the topic. The second point is that there is no distinction between the unspecified feature set between HW1 cars and HW2 cars. As I understand it, HW1 cars are supposed to take freeway exits under navigation when the car is in the land adjacent to the exit. This feature does not currently exist. HW2 cars supposedly one day will exit one freeway and merge onto another.
Also the use of the phrase "hands free" with HW1 Autopilot is misleading since the feature requires hands on the wheel. I propose removing "Hands-Free On-Ramp to Off-Ramp" from the table completely, as it is both misleading and duplicative of other features listed in the table.
Also, I think it would be helpful to distinguish between features that exist or are planned. For example, Autopilot was announced in October of 2014, and there is still no freeway interchange feature that actually exists.
I'll add lane departure warning to the table. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The text says that Autopilot was in Beta status during the incident, but that's misleading. Autosteer was in Beta but Tesla wasn't claiming that TACC or AEB were in Beta. Nobody is claiming that the accident had anything to do with the car's inability to steer properly. NHTSA found that TACC was a feature that allowed the car to follow other vehicles and that neither TACC nor AEB were designed for cross traffic detection, nor did Tesla claim that they were. NHTSA also investigated whether drivers understood how the system was supposed to be used and found that overwhelmingly drivers knew how it was designed to be used.
Claiming that it wasn't Tesla's fault because it was in Beta is beyond misleading, and is downright irrelevant. The NHTSA report should be cited, as well as how NHTSA found that it was working as designed and worked well even when compared to the best such systems on competing vehicles. Hagrinas (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
https://www.tesla.com/autopilot changes too frequently and old references do not back the text, nor is the page dated. Wikipedia policy is to prefer secondary sources rather than primary sources for references. WP:PRIMARY This is a reminder that the policy makes sense. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm amazed how many false claims are in this article stemming from quoting Tesla's overly wishful thinking. Tesla's claims should be prefixed with "According to Tesla ...", rather than stating them as fact. Example malarkey about hardware 3:
That what was said about hardware 2. Should we put FSD tag on hardware two tag also? If we change everything where it says FSD to PSD, partially self driving, it is a hundred times more times likely to be true. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot#Feature_Table The third column, 2016 EAP & FSD column, is wrong towards the bottom. Issue stems from being different answers depending upon if it is EAP or FSD. Options to fix:
Thoughts? I'm leaning towards option one at this point. Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot#HW3 I think it is important to note that last year Tesla said AP would be feature complete. A goal that has been missed. Important to track AP successes and failures. I reverted a change to make the date 2020. What do you think? Thanks! Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
According to the NTSB,
If you own a car with partial automation, you do not own a self-driving car. So don’t pretend that you do
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/25/tesla-driver-autopilot-crash
I think this article could use some TLC, as it currently reads like an advertisement written by Tesla. I've highlighted a few areas of particular concern:
Calling the HW3 a "full self-driving computer", and calling existing features "partial" self driving abilities, is misleading - currently Tesla has a level 2 "hands off"/partially automated driver assist system. I understand that Tesla themselves sell this as "Full Self Driving Capability", but it's important to be clear about the true current state of the technology. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car#Definitions
Many sources mention issues that have been raised surrounding safety of the Autopilot system, including issues with Tesla's self-reported safety claims, NTSB investigations, inability to see stopped vehicles, and claims that the "Autopilot" name itself is deceptive and dangerous.
The History, Driving features, and Technical Specifications sections all repeat a lot of the same information, and devote undue weight to the differences between the hardware versions.
There is a lot of apparent fluff and promotional material throughout the article, such as the "Future development" and anecdotes in the Public debate section, and a separate Awards section for one award.
I'd love to hear any thoughts or feedback, and look forward to improving this article together. Stonkaments (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Sonkaments reverted edit about Morgan Stanley indicating that only Tesla is an automaker making money with there autonomous software? Is that in dispute? Is there another automaker making money? Then promotes another analyst that says Tesla is last. Very bias in my opinion. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
References
The article refers to HW3 as a “Tesla designed SOC” which is of course not the case.
The HW3 was designed and produced by Samsung, though arguably Tesla had some input in the design.
It’s an SOC that uses standard ARM72 cores and standard ARM Mali GPUs.
The article gives the impression that Tesla designed the entire chip themselves, whereas in reality they picked some of Samsung/ARM’s “off the shelf” parts and combined them into an SOC.
The best comparison would be when say.... Nokia, is making a new cellphone and buys an SOC from Samsung. They come up with some specifications (price, battery life, speed) and together with Samsung pick the parts that meet the pricepoint and the particular performance needed.
There is a rather huge difference between DESIGNING an SOC (A multi billion dollar venture that takes 3-4 years) and ordering a customized version of an existing SOC, which is the case here and which the article should reflect.
A good comparison would be a fast food meal. There is a difference between peeling all the potatoes, cutting them into fries, making hamburger patties and baking buns. And going to McDonald’s and picking items off their menu, which is what Tesla did.
192.38.141.210 (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
That is an inaccurate description of HW3. Every boutique chipmaker combines off the shelf parts along with custom design. The bulk of the NN processing is not done by the Arm chip, which Samsung licensed from Arm. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Some of the features like summons and autosteer are not listed on Tesla's web page as beta: https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot , but I now know that in the car these features are listed as beta. If I would have known that prior to my edit, I would NOT have removed the beta markers. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
What do think of categorizing the Safety Concerns section into HW1 and HW2? And in the future there will be a hardware 3 subsection. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
FSD will grow in interest. If more people are coming here to learn about FSD, should article primarily focus on that? Should article be renamed FSD? Autopilot can be about HW1+. FSD should be about HW3 or latest hardware. Article split might make sense in the future. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Can we remove the cleanup tag from the history section now? I have done some work on that section. If the tag needs to remain, what other work needs to be done? ReferenceMan (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a reference in the text to outstanding crashes where there might or might not be a relation to the Tesla autopilot. I feel like its important to even have reference to ongoing cases, but the pure reference to an external article is not covering it sufficiently. This is also true as the list might change over time and also in terms of a near term content creation and provision ability for Wikipedia. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Should Tesla Dojo be a standalone article, or would it be better to merge here (or maybe History of Tesla, Inc.)? Your input would be appreciated; the discussion can be found at Talk:Tesla Dojo#Should this be a standalone article? Stonkaments (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The section is erroneously popular because initial report said no one was in the driver's seat. Yes it was an error. We don't need to put mistaken "autopilot use", when autopilot was not in use in article about autopilot. Can put info in Tesla Model S notable crashes. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how an item of Toyota following Tesla is relevant as a rebuttal to expert analysis of the technical merits, it's a synthetic combination. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The language regarding the three motorcycle crashes is a bit complicated - both of the sources claim that there were three cases involving a motorcycle and a Tesla that was using Autopilot. Yes, the CNN article also includes something about Riverside police saying that the Tesla in that case did not hit the motorcycle while the rider was on it, but it does so without addressing the tension that I think ReferenceMan and Ptrnext are concerned with. Does the sentence as it stands constitute Original Research then? Or maybe there needs to be other sources included? Or can the point be rephrased somehow to dissolve the tension entirely? QRep2020 (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
The text says "The Tesla was proceeding west on Artesia against the red light when it struck the Civic, which was turning left from Vermont onto Artesia."
but the accompanying animation shows the Civic emerging from the straight lane, rather than a left-turn lane. 98.51.94.150 (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
The start of the article is over-long, overly-technical and serms to read like a poor public relations hand out. Given that the safety of hands-free/self-driving car remains a major issue of concern, should not the 'Safety, statistics and concerns' section be placed nearer the top of the article - and given greater importance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.44 (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Given the continued, demonstrably false claims by Elon Musk that fully autonomous vehicles are coming soon, stretching back to 2013, I do not believe we should place any further credibility in Musk's predictions and references that primarily repeat his statements should be discounted. In addition, news organizations have been asked to view Musk's words skeptically.[1] I have taken the time to document these prior claims and determined whether or not they were met, based on the simple criterion "Did a Tesla vehicle meet SAE Level 5 autonomy by the date claimed?", as noted below.
Date | Prediction | Quote | Met | Ref(s) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sep 2013 | 2016 | "We should be able to do 90 percent of miles driven [autonomously] within three years." | No | [2] |
Oct 2014 | 2015 | "A Tesla car next year will probably be 90-percent capable of autopilot. Like, so 90 percent of your miles can be on auto. For sure highway travel." | AP/HW1 released Oct 2015 for highways[3] | [4][5] |
Oct 2015 | 2018 | "From a technology standpoint, Tesla will have a car that can do full autonomy in about three years, maybe a bit sooner." | No | [6] |
Dec 2015 | 2018 | "We're going to end up with complete autonomy, and I think we will have complete autonomy in approximately two years." | No | [7] |
Jan 2016 | 2018 | "Ultimately you'll be able to summon your car anywhere … your car can get to you. I think that within two years, you'll be able to summon your car from across the country. It will meet you wherever your phone is … and it will just automatically charge itself along the entire journey." | No | [8] |
Jun 2016 | 2019 | "I consider autonomous driving to be a basically solved problem. ... We're less than two years away from complete autonomy. Regulators however will take at least another year; they'll want to see billions of miles of data." | No | [9] |
Oct 2016 | Dec 2017 | "Our goal is, and I feel pretty good about this goal, that we'll be able to do a demonstration drive of full autonomy all the way from LA to New York, from home in LA to let's say dropping you off in Times Square in New York, and then having the car go park itself, by the end of next year. Without the need for a single touch, including the charger." | No | [10][11][12] |
Apr 2017 | Dec 2017 | "November or December of this year, we should be able to go from a parking lot in California to a parking lot in New York, no controls touched at any point during the entire journey." | No | [13] |
May 2017 | 2019 | "I think [a driver will be able to sleep at the wheel in] about two years. So the real trick of it is not how do you make it work say 99.9 percent of the time, because, like, if a car crashes one in a thousand times, then you're probably still not going to be comfortable falling asleep. You shouldn't be, certainly." | No | [14][15] |
Feb 2018 | Aug 2018 | "[Autopilot is] going to kind of be like [the progression of DeepMind's AlphaGo] for self-driving. It will feel like well this is a lame driver, lame driver. Like okay, that's a pretty good driver. Like holy cow, this driver's good. It'll be like that. I mean, timing-wise, I think we could probably do a coast-to-coast drive in three months, six months at the outside." | No | [16] |
Nov 2018 | 2019 | "You know, I think we'll get to full self-driving next year. As a generalized solution, I think. But that's a ... Like we're on track to do that next year. So I don't know. I don't think anyone else is on track to do it next year." | No | [17] |
Feb 2019 | Dec 2019 | "I think we will be feature complete — full self-driving — this year, meaning the car will be able to find you in a parking lot, pick you up and take you all the way to your destination without an intervention, this year. I would say I am of certain of that. That is not a question mark." | No | [18] |
Apr 2019 | 2020 | "I feel very confident predicting that there will be autonomous robotaxis from Tesla next year — not in all jurisdictions because we won't have regulatory approval everywhere." "From our standpoint, if you fast forward a year, maybe a year and three months, but next year for sure, we'll have over a million robotaxis on the road." | No | [19] |
Jul 2020 | Dec 2020 | "I'm extremely confident that level five - or essentially complete autonomy - will happen and I think will happen very quickly. I feel like we are very close. I remain confident that we will have the basic functionality for level five autonomy complete this year. There are no fundamental challenges remaining. There are many small problems. And then there's the challenge of solving all those small problems and putting the whole system together." | No | [20][21] |
Jan 2021 | Dec 2021 | "And it's now actually more -- it's more common than not for the car to have no interventions, even on a complex drive. So -- and this is -- basically I'm highly confident the car will drive itself for the reliability in excess of a human this year. This is a very big deal." | No | [22] |
Apr 2022 | Dec 2022 | "The whole road system is made for biological neural nets and eyes. And so actually, when you think about it, in order to solve driving, we have to solve neural nets and cameras to a degree of capability that is on par with, or really exceeds humans. And I think we will achieve that this year." | No | [23] |
Aug 2022 | Dec 2022 | "The two technologies I am focused on, trying to ideally get done before the end of the year, are getting our Starship into orbit ... and then having Tesla cars to be able to do self-driving. ... Have self-driving in wide release at least in the U.S., and ... potentially in Europe, depending on regulatory approval." | FSD Beta wide release Nov 2022 | [24] |
May 2023 | Dec 2023 | "I mean, it does look like [full autonomy is] gonna happen this year. ... Well, we're now at the point where the car can drive on highways and in cities with and where a human dimension is extremely rare. So I mean, just – I was able to drive for several days, just dropping a navigation pin in random locations in the Greater Austin area with no interventions. And the same in San Francisco, which is a very difficult place to drive." | No | [25] |
Jul 2023 | Dec 2023 | "People have sort of made fun of me and perhaps quite fairly have made fun of me, my predictions about achieving full self-driving have been optimistic in the past ... I'm the boy who cried FSD, but I think we'll be better than human by the end of this year. I've been wrong in the past, I may be wrong this time." | No | [26] |
References
Mliu92 (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
It summarises a lot of information at a good level of detail. Unfortunately, the article as a whole reads rather hit-pieceish.
I would encourage readers interested in the technology, especially safety conscious potential buyers, to seek information directly from actual users and experience the system themselves if possible. This article does, sadly, not provide a balanced description (it seems to be a recurrent issue in the automobile industry, I recall similar criticism when seat belts were made mandatory, or when ABS and airbags were introduced, for instance). 85.160.32.101 (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)