News
Tesla Autopilot ‘easily tricked’ by Consumer Reports in bizarre test
Consumer Reports claims to have shown that Tesla Autopilot can be “easily tricked” into driving without anyone in the driver’s seat. The test process was extremely bizarre and required certain items that most drivers would never have in their vehicles.
CR released a report on April 22nd entitled, “CR Engineers Show a Tesla Will Drive With No One in the Driver’s Seat.” The test was in response to the recent and very public Tesla Model S crash in Texas, where two men, unfortunately, passed away after their all-electric sedan crashed violently into a tree at a high speed. Investigators are attempting to determine whether the vehicle was “driverless,” a claim made by several mainstream media outlets. CEO Elon Musk chimed in just days after the crash and the very public coverage of it to say that it would be impossible for Autopilot to function on the road where the crash occurred due to the lack of road lines, which are required to initiate the use of Basic Autopilot.
Tesla alleged “driverless” crash in Texas: What is known so far
The CR test required the vehicle, a Tesla Model Y, to be in motion, and engineers then engaged Autopilot and set the speed dial to 0, which brought the car to a stop. Next, Jake Fisher, CR’s Senior Director of Auto Testing, placed a “small, weighted chain on the steering wheel, to simulate the weight of a driver’s hand, and slid over into the front passenger seat without opening any of the vehicle’s doors, because that would disengage Autopilot.” The Autopilot speed was then adjusted so that the vehicle would accelerate from its stationary position. The car managed to drive up and down the half-mile lane of the CR test track, although nobody was in the seat or controlling the vehicle. “It was a bit frightening when we realized how easy it was to defeat the safeguards, which we proved were clearly insufficient,” Fisher said. The engineers encouraged nobody to try the experiment at home, but who will have a custom weighted chain sitting around to experiment with anyway?
“In our evaluation, the system not only failed to make sure the driver was paying attention, but it also couldn’t tell if there was a driver there at all,” Fisher added, but he wasn’t done throwing shade at Tesla. “Tesla is falling behind other automakers like GM and Ford that, on models with advanced driver assist systems, use technology to make sure the driver is looking at the road.” GM’s SuperCruise and Ford’s recently released BlueCruise are what Fisher is referencing, but the comparisons don’t really add up.
Tesla Autopilot has over 23 billion real-world miles of data that is stored in a Neural Network to improve performance. With every mile driven, Tesla’s semi-autonomous driving functionalities become more robust, more precise, and more adaptable to human behavior. Ford and GM have accumulated only a fraction of these statistics. Tesla, meanwhile, recently reported its Q1 2021 Safety Report, where it found that Autopilot is nearly 10 times safer than human driving.
Tesla’s Q1 2021 accident data shows Autopilot is closing in on being 10X safer than humans
The test performed by CR is extremely bizarre because people would not normally have all of these things in their vehicle or even in their possession, to begin with. Tesla maintains that drivers are responsible for remaining attentive during the entirety of their driving experience. The company has never claimed to have released a program capable of Level 5 autonomy where a driver needs to pay no attention to the road or the vehicle’s surroundings. Yet, Tesla’s very-publicized crash raises questions from those who have a historical distaste for the company and its products. Consumer Reports has not been keen on Tesla in the past. They have indicated that GM’s SuperCruise, despite being less effective or safe than Autopilot based on data, holds a commanding lead over Tesla’s semi-autonomous driving program.
It is worth noting that Tesla has several safety thresholds that would prohibit anyone from attempting to let the vehicle drive itself. These include a steering wheel monitoring system, which will bring the car to a complete stop if the driver is not holding it. The system also requires a driver to be in the seat to function, and the company recently revoked FSD software from several drivers who were abusing the program by being inattentive. More safety features, like a facial features recognition camera, will monitor the driver’s eyes and face to ensure they are paying attention to the road.
What are your thoughts on the CR study? Let us know in the comments, or let me know at @KlenderJoey on Twitter. You can email me at joey@teslarati.com as well.
News
NVIDIA Director of Robotics: Tesla FSD v14 is the first AI to pass the “Physical Turing Test”
After testing FSD v14, Fan stated that his experience with FSD felt magical at first, but it soon started to feel like a routine.
NVIDIA Director of Robotics Jim Fan has praised Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14 as the first AI to pass what he described as a “Physical Turing Test.”
After testing FSD v14, Fan stated that his experience with FSD felt magical at first, but it soon started to feel like a routine. And just like smartphones today, removing it now would “actively hurt.”
Jim Fan’s hands-on FSD v14 impressions
Fan, a leading researcher in embodied AI who is currently solving Physical AI at NVIDIA and spearheading the company’s Project GR00T initiative, noted that he actually was late to the Tesla game. He was, however, one of the first to try out FSD v14.
“I was very late to own a Tesla but among the earliest to try out FSD v14. It’s perhaps the first time I experience an AI that passes the Physical Turing Test: after a long day at work, you press a button, lay back, and couldn’t tell if a neural net or a human drove you home,” Fan wrote in a post on X.
Fan added: “Despite knowing exactly how robot learning works, I still find it magical watching the steering wheel turn by itself. First it feels surreal, next it becomes routine. Then, like the smartphone, taking it away actively hurts. This is how humanity gets rewired and glued to god-like technologies.”
The Physical Turing Test
The original Turing Test was conceived by Alan Turing in 1950, and it was aimed at determining if a machine could exhibit behavior that is equivalent to or indistinguishable from a human. By focusing on text-based conversations, the original Turing Test set a high bar for natural language processing and machine learning.
This test has been passed by today’s large language models. However, the capability to converse in a humanlike manner is a completely different challenge from performing real-world problem-solving or physical interactions. Thus, Fan introduced the Physical Turing Test, which challenges AI systems to demonstrate intelligence through physical actions.
Based on Fan’s comments, Tesla has demonstrated these intelligent physical actions with FSD v14. Elon Musk agreed with the NVIDIA executive, stating in a post on X that with FSD v14, “you can sense the sentience maturing.” Musk also praised Tesla AI, calling it the best “real-world AI” today.
News
Tesla AI team burns the Christmas midnight oil by releasing FSD v14.2.2.1
The update was released just a day after FSD v14.2.2 started rolling out to customers.
Tesla is burning the midnight oil this Christmas, with the Tesla AI team quietly rolling out Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.2.2.1 just a day after FSD v14.2.2 started rolling out to customers.
Tesla owner shares insights on FSD v14.2.2.1
Longtime Tesla owner and FSD tester @BLKMDL3 shared some insights following several drives with FSD v14.2.2.1 in rainy Los Angeles conditions with standing water and faded lane lines. He reported zero steering hesitation or stutter, confident lane changes, and maneuvers executed with precision that evoked the performance of Tesla’s driverless Robotaxis in Austin.
Parking performance impressed, with most spots nailed perfectly, including tight, sharp turns, in single attempts without shaky steering. One minor offset happened only due to another vehicle that was parked over the line, which FSD accommodated by a few extra inches. In rain that typically erases road markings, FSD visualized lanes and turn lines better than humans, positioning itself flawlessly when entering new streets as well.
“Took it up a dark, wet, and twisty canyon road up and down the hill tonight and it went very well as to be expected. Stayed centered in the lane, kept speed well and gives a confidence inspiring steering feel where it handles these curvy roads better than the majority of human drivers,” the Tesla owner wrote in a post on X.
Tesla’s FSD v14.2.2 update
Just a day before FSD v14.2.2.1’s release, Tesla rolled out FSD v14.2.2, which was focused on smoother real-world performance, better obstacle awareness, and precise end-of-trip routing. According to the update’s release notes, FSD v14.2.2 upgrades the vision encoder neural network with higher resolution features, enhancing detection of emergency vehicles, road obstacles, and human gestures.
New Arrival Options also allowed users to select preferred drop-off styles, such as Parking Lot, Street, Driveway, Parking Garage, or Curbside, with the navigation pin automatically adjusting to the ideal spot. Other refinements include pulling over for emergency vehicles, real-time vision-based detours for blocked roads, improved gate and debris handling, and Speed Profiles for customized driving styles.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s Grok records lowest hallucination rate in AI reliability study
Grok achieved an 8% hallucination rate, 4.5 customer rating, 3.5 consistency, and 0.07% downtime, resulting in an overall risk score of just 6.
A December 2025 study by casino games aggregator Relum has identified Elon Musk’s Grok as one of the most reliable AI chatbots for workplace use, boasting the lowest hallucination rate at just 8% among the 10 major models tested.
In comparison, market leader ChatGPT registered one of the highest hallucination rates at 35%, just behind Google’s Gemini, which registered a high hallucination rate of 38%. The findings highlight Grok’s factual prowess despite the AI model’s lower market visibility.
Grok tops hallucination metric
The research evaluated chatbots on hallucination rate, customer ratings, response consistency, and downtime rate. The chatbots were then assigned a reliability risk score from 0 to 99, with higher scores indicating bigger problems.
Grok achieved an 8% hallucination rate, 4.5 customer rating, 3.5 consistency, and 0.07% downtime, resulting in an overall risk score of just 6. DeepSeek followed closely with 14% hallucinations and zero downtime for a stellar risk score of 4. ChatGPT’s high hallucination and downtime rates gave it the top risk score of 99, followed by Claude and Meta AI, which earned reliability risk scores of 75 and 70, respectively.
Why low hallucinations matter
Relum Chief Product Officer Razvan-Lucian Haiduc shared his thoughts about the study’s findings. “About 65% of US companies now use AI chatbots in their daily work, and nearly 45% of employees admit they’ve shared sensitive company information with these tools. These numbers show well how important chatbots have become in everyday work.
“Dependence on AI tools will likely increase even more, so companies should choose their chatbots based on how reliable and fit they are for their specific business needs. A chatbot that everyone uses isn’t necessarily the one that works best for your industry or gives accurate answers for your tasks.”
In a way, the study reveals a notable gap between AI chatbots’ popularity and performance, with Grok’s low hallucination rate positioning it as a strong choice for accuracy-critical applications. This was despite the fact that Grok is not used as much by users, at least compared to more mainstream AI applications such as ChatGPT.
NVIDIA Director of Robotics: Tesla FSD v14 is the first AI to pass the “Physical Turing Test”
Tesla AI team burns the Christmas midnight oil by releasing FSD v14.2.2.1
