Connect with us

News

I tried Tesla’s FSD Supervised on a demo drive—Here’s what I learned

Published

on

Tesla’s Supervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) has been at the center of the company’s long-term strategy for years, and seeing as I’ve been covering the company and its competitors since 2020, I decided it was finally time to try it out myself.

The process of scheduling a demo drive was simple: I scheduled it online through Tesla’s test drive page, and because I was hoping to focus on FSD, I shot an email over to the Loveland team letting them know that I was coming and was planning to try the software out. I got a quick response, in which one of the advisors offered to schedule me for an extended demo drive, effectively giving me a three-hour window to try out FSD Supervised.

On Monday, I headed out from my house in Fort Collins, Colorado, to the next town over, Loveland, to try Tesla’s latest FSD Supervised version available. While I initially scheduled a demo drive for a Model Y with FSD Supervised v13.2.2, one of the Tesla advisors informed me that there was also a Model S on-site with version v13.2.2.1, so I elected to test that one instead.

After getting a quick rundown from the advisor on the Model S, my demo drive officially began. I typed my first destination into the navigation system, pressed and held the blue “Start FSD (Supervised)” button, and off I went.

Tesla’s FSD Supervised: autonomy is definitely on the way

Perhaps many people have this experience when trying FSD out for the first time, but right off the bat, I found myself laughing at how it worked and a little scared that it would make a mistake. This Model S was now driving me out of the Loveland Tesla parking lot to a nearby Target, through busy parking lots, turns and lane changes, and it was pretty uncomfortable at first not to be the one making the maneuvers—let alone the fact that no person was making these maneuvers, but rather it was the vehicle doing it on its own.

I felt like an anxious passenger—my feet pressed firmly on the floor in distrust and disbelief—only I was sitting in the driver’s seat. I really couldn’t do much but laugh at how strange the experience had felt so far.

Then, not long after my first trip, something interesting happened.

Advertisement
-

My mindset slowly shifted from fear to trust with each correct maneuver, and I managed my first few drives without disengaging at all, offering a true testament to how well FSD Supervised performed on this test. Granted, I went in without too much of a plan and wasn’t targeting fringe cases or particularly tough maneuvers; I just wanted to see if this car could drive me around for a few hours, and to feel what it was like to demo FSD Supervised as a newcomer.

It’s worth noting that I did most of my driving in FSD’s Chill mode, though I also tested a few drives in both Standard and Hurry. Personally, I think I would probably keep it in Chill mode most of the time, as it’s the most similar to how I drive of the three.

Below are a few moments from the drive that show some of the system’s capabilities, even turning onto busy roads that would be difficult for a human driver.

Tesla’s FSD Supervised reverses out of a parking spot… and we’re off

Advertisement
-

Tesla’s FSD Supervised takes a few left turns onto busy roads

Tesla’s FSD Supervised tackles a two-lane roundabout and parking lot

Advertisement
-

READ MORE ON TESLA’S FSD SUPERVISED: Tesla Cybertruck receives FSD (Supervised) v13.2.4 update

The temptation not to pay attention, and my most critical disengagement

Elon Musk and others have talked up FSD Supervised v13 since its release, as well as claiming that unsupervised driving is just around the corner. While it does feel closer than ever after years of reporting on small tweaks, improvements and developments, I think it’s also worth emphasizing again that the system still requires the driver to pay attention, even though it’s tempting to believe that it can handle all the driving by itself.

Advertisement
-

As I drove more and more, or rather as the car drove me, I became more comfortable trusting that FSD Supervised was going to make the right decisions, which it did about 99 percent of the time. I was lulled into somewhat of a false sense of safety that almost had me believing the vehicle didn’t need to be supervised, but that 1 percent of the time (maybe even less) that it did get confused still required my input.

I only had a few interventions for the whole experience, but one in particular had me a little scared after having become a little complacent and too trusting. As you can see in the video below, FSD Supervised was looking to merge into the right lane, when two vehicles slowed down. The Model S attempted to change lanes anyway, requiring me to overtake the wheel and keep driving straight.

Besides the quick moment of fear in deciding I needed to take the wheel, it really was not a big deal once I regained control. It was actually a good wake-up call: this system still needs to be supervised, even if it makes fewer and fewer mistakes with each new version and feels like a solid human driver for the vast majority of the time.

I had a few other disengagements on my drive, mostly when the vehicle seemed to get confused about uncommon traffic circumstances or in confusing parking lot scenarios without clear signage. However, these moments made up a very small portion of my experience, and I can only imagine what another couple of years of development will do.

Advertisement
-

Tesla’s FSD Supervised: still needs supervision, but I got a good glimpse into a future of autonomy

All in all, I really enjoyed trying out FSD Supervised and I hope to do it again sometime. Additionally, I’d recommend trying it out to anyone, especially if you’re interested in seeing where driving tech is headed.

While I definitely got a glimpse into the future potential for fully autonomous driving, I also think it still requires supervision, even if just for those very seldom moments where the system gets confused. The margin for error with driving safety is obviously extremely low, though I do believe Tesla will eventually make good on its aim to make this system better than human drivers in time—and it already feels pretty close the majority of the time.

I hope to do this again sometime soon, and a major shout out to the Tesla Loveland team for making the experience smooth and for answering all my questions along the way.

What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.

Tesla employees are performing autonomous FSD trials, CEO Elon Musk says

Need accessories for your Tesla? Check out the Teslarati Marketplace:

Advertisement
-

Zach is a renewable energy reporter who has been covering electric vehicles since 2020. He grew up in Fremont, California, and he currently lives in Colorado. His work has appeared in the Chicago Tribune, KRON4 San Francisco, FOX31 Denver, InsideEVs, CleanTechnica, and many other publications. When he isn't covering Tesla or other EV companies, you can find him writing and performing music, drinking a good cup of coffee, or hanging out with his cats, Banks and Freddie. Reach out at zach@teslarati.com, find him on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Grok Bot users hit with weekly limits early, Elon Musk explains what happened

Published

on

Credit: Grok Bot

Elon Musk said weeks ago during SpaceX’s third-quarter earnings call that the company’s Grok Bot, its autonomous AI Agent platform, was showing “the fastest growth of a product” that he’d ever seen in his life.

Now, SpaceXSI is scaling back Grok Bot users’ weekly limits, much to the surprise of those who have relied on it to take away monotonous tasks in their lives.

Elon Musk’s terse November 1 reply on X captured a sharp tension in the early days of agentic AI. Responding to a user who asked for a Grok Bot usage reset after hitting 100 percent with four days still left on the weekly cycle, Musk wrote: “The cost of serving Grok Bot was unsustainably high relative to revenue.”

The post arrived amid a wave of similar complaints from paying subscribers whose meters had jumped unexpectedly toward or to the limit, sometimes overnight and with little corresponding activity. It also stood in clear contrast to statements Musk had made only days and weeks earlier.

Advertisement
-

On the SpaceX third-quarter earnings call in mid-to-late October, Musk had described Grok Bot in almost the opposite terms. He called it “the fastest growth of a product that I’ve ever seen in my life” and said he had “never seen anything grow this fast.”

Company figures put paid weekly users at roughly 800,000 earlier in the month, more than doubling over the prior period. Daily active users had climbed from under 100,000 in early September to over 600,000 by late October.

Musk emphasized that the product has no free tier and that users appear to be getting real value beyond what they pay. In other remarks, he noted that usage per user was rising rather than declining, the opposite of the usual decay pattern for new software.

Grok Bot, launched around August, functions as an always-available agent with its own persistent cloud computer; it can schedule, research, shop, browse, and execute multi-step workflows even after the user steps away. Access is bundled into X subscription tiers (roughly $30, $100, and $200 per month) and certain Cursor plans, drawing from shared weekly usage pools whose exact sizes have not been publicly detailed.

The economics of that model are what Musk’s November 1 post put in the spotlight. Agentic systems burn far more compute than ordinary chatbot exchanges. Each task can trigger repeated model calls, tool use, web actions, and sustained background work.

When growth is as rapid as Musk celebrated, the absolute compute bill scales quickly even if average revenue per user stays fixed under flat monthly subscriptions. Industry observers noted the opportunity cost as well: the same GPUs can be rented to other AI labs at higher rates.

Advertisement
-

A simple back-of-the-envelope comparison circulating after the post illustrated the gap: if every reported daily user paid the top tier, annualized subscription revenue would still be modest relative to the scale of compute infrastructure SpaceX is building and leasing to companies like Anthropic.

Some users also reported possible dashboard anomalies around the same period, though Musk’s framing treated the underlying cost-revenue imbalance as the core issue rather than a pure metering glitch.

The juxtaposition is the core of this exchange. Within roughly two weeks of publicly framing Grok Bot as an unprecedented success with strong unit economics and no free tier, Musk acknowledged that serving the same product had become unsustainable relative to the revenue it generates.

For the broader industry, the episode underscores a structural challenge of the agent era: demand is real and growing faster than many expected, yet the cost of fulfilling that demand through always-on, multi-step agents can outrun subscription pricing before companies can adjust limits, introduce metered billing, or raise prices.

Musk’s reply did not promise an immediate reset or higher allowances; it simply stated the constraint. In doing so, it supplied a rare, explicit public data point on the unit economics of a high-profile AI agent just as adoption numbers were still being celebrated as the fastest in Musk’s experience.

The tension between rapid, paid growth and the compute required to deliver it is now on the record.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading

News

Tesla owners who tap Emergency Drive Away for fun are in for a surprise

Tapping Activate on Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away reportedly triggers a $539 service bill without moving.

Published

on

By

Tesla owners who press Activate on Emergency Drive Away may be on the hook for a service bill even if their car never leaves the Supercharger stall.

Yaro, who posts about Tesla service cases on X as @Tutrifour, said a customer called after tapping Activate while still plugged into a Supercharger. The owner was about to pull away, remembered the cable was still connected and stopped. The car never moved, but the touchscreen showed a red alert reading “Emergency Drive Away has been activated” with “Service is required” underneath. A Service Mode screenshot showed the active alert BMS_a228_EmergencyDriveAwayServiceRequired, which Yaro said only Tesla Service can clear.


The cost of clearing it was the bigger surprise. “Don’t press Activate on the new Emergency Drive Away feature on your Tesla because service charges $539 to inspect the charge port and to clear the alert. Yes, even if you didn’t move the car an inch,” Yaro wrote.  The $539 figure comes from that single case, and Tesla has not published a set price for the inspection or commented on the post. Yaro also noted that the car would still charge with the alert on screen.

Tesla launched Emergency Drive Away on October 1 with software update 2026.38.3, letting drivers pull away from a U.S. Supercharger with the cable still attached, as Teslarati reported. To use it, a driver shifts into Drive while connected, holds the brake and taps Activate. The prompt warns that driving with the cable connected will damage the vehicle and the Supercharger, and that short camera recordings will be shared with Tesla.

Tesla Charging has been clear about what follows a real activation. Repairs to a Supercharger stall can run up to $25,000 depending on the site, a service visit for the car’s charge port is mandatory, and deliberate misuse “will invoke additional penalties.” What the company had not spelled out is that the service requirement is triggered the moment Activate is pressed, not the moment the cable breaks away.

Advertisement
-

From an engineering standpoint, that is the cautious choice. Once Activate is pressed, the car cannot be sure the charge port latch was not stressed, so flagging it for inspection removes the guesswork. It also means the button carries a price on its own, which is a stronger deterrent against casual use than any warning screen.


The report follows the feature’s first known real world use, when a driver in Austin during F1 weekend appeared to trigger it by accident and dragged the Supercharger cable along with the car. The Reddit user who filmed it said the driver seemed to have only half read the prompts.

For owners, the takeaway is to treat the red prompt as a stop sign. If it appears after shifting out of Park by mistake, shift back and unplug the normal way from the touchscreen, the Tesla app or the button on the charge handle. Activate is meant for moments when staying at the stall is the bigger risk, and Tesla is now pricing it that way.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk calls Earth’s data centers “peanuts” next to what SpaceX is planning in orbit

Elon Musk says SpaceX capex efficiency is underestimated as orbital data centers loom by 2028.

Published

on

By

Elon Musk is pushing back on one of the biggest worries hanging over SpaceX stock. In a reply on X on Sunday, Musk said the company’s capital expenditure efficiency is severely underestimated. He was responding to a Milk Road Stocks post citing analyst Kyle Reidhead, who estimates SpaceX will need to spend roughly $470 billion over the next five quarters.

Reidhead built that figure around the target SpaceX set on its third quarter earnings call: 13 gigawatts or more of compute by the end of 2027. In his breakdown, Nvidia captures 83 to 89 percent of the spending. SpaceX ended the quarter with 1.7 GW of nameplate compute and guided to $35 billion to $40 billion in fourth quarter capex, as Teslarati reported.

Musk did not attach a number to his claim, but the earnings call shows the argument. CFO Bret Johnsen said new compute currently pays for itself in under a year at today’s pricing, and Musk said that window could shrink to six months next year. Using that pace, Reidhead argues about $230 billion of the $470 billion could come from operating cash flow and about $60 billion from SpaceX’s roughly $90 billion cash pile, leaving around $180 billion to borrow. Musk confirmed last week that SpaceX had already closed a new $40 billion debt raise to buy GPUs.

The ground buildout is not the end goal. It is what is meant to pay for the move to orbit. Replying on Friday to charts built from Sequoia partner Shaun Maguire’s SpaceX model, Musk wrote that “Terrestrial compute will be peanuts compared to orbital compute,” adding that orbital compute deployed per month “probably exceeds terrestrial around the end of 2028 and then far exceeds it in 2029.”

Maguire’s model shows how steep that path is. It has capex climbing from $88 billion this year to $290 billion in 2027 and $369 billion in 2028, with SpaceX burning $77.8 billion in cash this year and $122.6 billion next year before turning $114.9 billion cash positive in 2028. Musk’s response to the model was, “I think we can do better.”

Advertisement
-

The orbital half runs through Starmind. SpaceX plans to operate up to 1 million AI satellites flying in clusters of about 10, linked by roughly 10 terabits of bandwidth, with deployment of thousands of units starting as soon as late 2027 out of its Gigasat factory in Bastrop, Texas, according to SpaceX’s space safety page. Musk has said each Starmind spacecraft will carry more than 250 kW of solar power.

Getting there depends on launch volume. Maguire’s model assumes 250 Starship flights in 2028, up from two this year and 38 next year. The nearer test is financial: SpaceX guided to $33 billion to $37 billion in first quarter 2027 revenue, more than double the $14.58 billion it booked in Q3, and Musk reposted that guidance again on Sunday morning.

Continue Reading