News
Tesla posts stern response to Washington Post’s article on alleged Autopilot dangers
Tesla has posted a stern response to a recent article from The Washington Post that suggested that the electric vehicle maker is putting people at risk because it allows systems like Autopilot to be deployed in areas that it was not designed for. The publication noted that it was able to identify about 40 fatal or serious crashes since 2016, and at least eight of them happened in roads where Autopilot was not designed to be used in the first place.
Overall, the Washington Post article argued that while Tesla does inform drivers that they are responsible for their vehicles while Autopilot is engaged, the company is nonetheless also at fault since it allows its driver-assist system to be deployed irresponsibly. “Even though the company has the technical ability to limit Autopilot’s availability by geography, it has taken few definitive steps to restrict use of the software,” the article read.
In its response, which was posted through its official account on X, Tesla highlighted that it is very serious about keeping both its customers and pedestrians safe. The company noted that the data is clear about the fact that systems like Autopilot, when used safety, drastically reduce the number of accidents on the road. The company also reiterated the fact that features like Traffic Aware Cruise Control are Level 2 systems, which require constant supervision from the driver.
Following is the pertinent section of Tesla’s response.
While there are many articles that do not accurately convey the nature of our safety systems, the recent Washington Post article is particularly egregious in its misstatements and lack of relevant context.
We at Tesla believe that we have a moral obligation to continue improving our already best-in-class safety systems. At the same time, we also believe it is morally indefensible not to make these systems available to a wider set of consumers, given the incontrovertible data that shows it is saving lives and preventing injury.
Regulators around the globe have a duty to protect consumers, and the Tesla team looks forward to continuing our work with them towards our common goal of eliminating as many deaths and injuries as possible on our roadways.
Below are some important facts, context and background.
Background
1. Safety metrics are emphatically stronger when Autopilot is engaged than when not engaged.
a. In the 4th quarter of 2022, we recorded one crash for every 4.85 million miles driven in which drivers were using Autopilot technology. For drivers who were not using Autopilot technology, we recorded one crash for every 1.40 million miles driven. By comparison, the most recent data available from NHTSA and FHWA (from 2021) shows that in the United States there was an automobile crash approximately every 652,000 miles.
b. The data is clear: The more automation technology offered to support the driver, the safer the driver and other road users. Anecdotes from the WaPo article come from plaintiff attorneys—cases involving significant driver misuse—and are not a substitute for rigorous analysis and billions of miles of data.
c. Recent Data continues this trend and is even more compelling. Autopilot is ~10X safer than US average and ~5X safer than a Tesla with no AP tech enabled. More detailed information will be publicly available in the near future.
2. Autopilot features, including Traffic-Aware Cruise Control and Autosteer, are SAE Level 2 driver-assist systems, meaning –
a. Whether the driver chooses to engage Autosteer or not, the driver is in control of the vehicle at all times. The driver is notified of this responsibility, consents, agrees to monitor the driving assistance, and can disengage anytime.
b. Despite the driver being responsible for control for the vehicle, Tesla has a number of additional safety measures designed to monitor that drivers engage in active driver supervision, including torque-based and camera-based monitoring. We have continued to make progress in improving these monitoring systems to reduce misuse.
c. Based on the above, among other factors, the data strongly indicates our customers are far safer by having the choice to decide when it is appropriate to engage Autopilot features. When used properly, it provides safety benefits on all road classes.
Tesla also provided some context about some of the crashes that were highlighted by The Washington Post. As per the electric vehicle maker, the incidents that the publication cited involved drivers who were not using Autopilot correctly. The publication, therefore, omitted several important facts when it was framing its narrative around Autopilot’s alleged risks, Tesla argued.
Following is the pertinent section of Tesla’s response.
The Washington Post leverages instances of driver misuse of the Autopilot driver assist feature to suggest the system is the problem. The article got it wrong, misreporting what’s actually alleged in the pending lawsuit and omitting several important facts:
1. Contrary to the Post article, the Complaint doesn’t reference complacency or Operational Design Domain.
2. Instead, the Complaint acknowledges the harms of driver inattention, misuse, and negligence.
3. Mr. Angulo and the parents of Ms. Benavides who tragically died in the crash, first sued the Tesla driver—and settled with him—before ever pursuing a claim against Tesla.
4. The Benavides lawsuit alleges the Tesla driver “carelessly and/or recklessly” “drove through the intersection…ignoring the controlling stop sign and traffic signal.”
5. The Tesla driver didn’t blame Tesla, didn’t sue Tesla, didn’t try to get Tesla to pay on his behalf. He took responsibility.
6. The Post had the driver’s statements to police and reports that he said he was “driving on cruise.” They omit that he also admitted to police “I expect to be the driver and be responsible for this.”
7. The driver later testified in the litigation he knew Autopilot didn’t make the car self-driving and he was the driver, contrary to the Post and Angulo claims that he was mislead, over-reliant or complacent. He readily and repeatedly admitted:
a. “I was highly aware that was still my responsibility to operate the vehicle safely.”
b. He agreed it was his “responsibility as the driver of the vehicle, even with Autopilot activated, to drive safely and be in control of the vehicle at all times.”
c. “I would say specifically I was aware that the car was my responsibility. I didn’t read all these statements and passages, but I’m aware the car was my responsibility.”
8. The Post also failed to disclose that Autopilot restricted the vehicle’s speed to 45 mph (the speed limit) based on the road type, but the driver was pressing the accelerator to maintain 60 mph when he ran the stop sign and caused the crash. The car displayed an alert to the driver that, because he was overriding Autopilot with the accelerator, “Cruise control will not brake.”
While there are many articles that do not accurately convey the nature of our safety systems, the recent Washington Post article is particularly egregious in its misstatements and lack of relevant context.
We at Tesla believe that we have a moral obligation to continue…
— Tesla (@Tesla) December 12, 2023
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk proposes Grok 5 vs world’s best League of Legends team match
Musk’s proposal has received positive reception from professional players and Riot Games alike.
Elon Musk has proposed a high-profile gaming challenge for xAI’s upcoming Grok 5. As per Musk, it would be interesting to see if the large language model could beat the world’ best human League of Legends team with specific constraints.
Musk’s proposal has received positive reception from professional players and Riot Games alike, suggesting that the exciting exhibition match might indeed happen.
Musk outlines restrictions for Grok
In his post on X, Musk detailed constraints to keep the match competitive, including limiting Grok to human-level reaction times, human-speed clicking, and viewing the game only through a camera feed with standard 20/20 vision. The idea quickly circulated across the esports community, drawing commentary from former pros and AI researchers, as noted in a Dexerto report.
Former League pro Eugene “Pobelter” Park expressed enthusiasm, offering to help Musk’s team and noting the unique comparison to past AI-versus-human breakthroughs, such as OpenAI’s Dota 2 bots. AI researcher Oriol Vinyals, who previously reached Grandmaster rank in StarCraft, suggested testing Grok in RTS gameplay as well.
Musk welcomed the idea, even responding positively to Vinyals’ comment that it would be nice to see Optimus operate the mouse and keyboard.
Pros debate Grok’s chances, T1 and Riot show interest
Reactions weren’t universally optimistic. Former professional mid-laner Joedat “Voyboy” Esfahani argued that even with Grok’s rapid learning capabilities, League of Legends requires deep synergy, game-state interpretation, and team coordination that may be difficult for AI to master at top competitive levels. Yiliang “Doublelift” Peng was similarly skeptical, publicly stating he doubted Grok could beat T1, or even himself, and jokingly promised to shave his head if Grok managed to win.
T1, however, embraced the proposal, responding with a GIF of Faker and the message “We are ready,” signaling their willingness to participate. Riot Games itself also reacted, with co-founder Marc Merrill replying to Musk with “let’s discuss.” Needless to say, it appears that Riot Games in onboard with the idea.
Though no match has been confirmed, interest from players, teams, and Riot suggests the concept could materialize into a landmark AI-versus-human matchup, potentially becoming one of the most viewed League of Legends events in history. The fact that Grok 5 will be constrained to human limits would definitely add an interesting dimension to the matchup, as it could truly demonstrate how human-like the large language model could be like in real-time scenarios.
Tesla has passed a key milestone, and it was one that CEO Elon Musk initially mentioned more than nine years ago when he published Master Plan, Part Deux.
As per Tesla China in a post on its official Weibo account, the company’s Autopilot system has accumulated over 10 billion kilometers of real-world driving experience.
Tesla China’s subtle, but huge announcement
In its Weibo post, Tesla China announced that the company’s Autopilot system has accumulated 10 billion kilometers of driving experience. “In this respect, Tesla vehicles equipped with Autopilot technology can be considered to have the world’s most experienced and seasoned driver.”
Tesla AI’s handle on Weibo also highlighted a key advantage of the company’s self-driving system. “It will never drive under the influence of alcohol, be distracted, or be fatigued,” the team wrote. “We believe that advancements in Autopilot technology will save more lives.”
Tesla China did not clarify exactly what it meant by “Autopilot” in its Weibo post, though the company’s intense focus on FSD over the past years suggests that the term includes miles that were driven by FSD (Beta) and Full Self-Driving (Supervised). Either way, 10 billion cumulative miles of real-world data is something that few, if any, competitors could compete with.
Advertisement
–>
Elon Musk’s 10-billion-km estimate, way back in 2016
When Elon Musk published Master Plan Part Deux, he outlined his vision for the company’s autonomous driving system. At the time, Autopilot was still very new, though Musk was already envisioning how the system could get regulatory approval worldwide. He estimated that worldwide regulatory approval will probably require around 10 billion miles of real-world driving data, which was an impossible-sounding amount at the time.
“Even once the software is highly refined and far better than the average human driver, there will still be a significant time gap, varying widely by jurisdiction, before true self-driving is approved by regulators. We expect that worldwide regulatory approval will require something on the order of 6 billion miles (10 billion km). Current fleet learning is happening at just over 3 million miles (5 million km) per day,” Musk wrote.
It’s quite interesting but Tesla is indeed getting regulatory approval for FSD (Supervised) at a steady pace today, at a time when 10 billion miles of data has been achieved. The system has been active in the United States and has since been rolled out to other countries such as Australia, New Zealand, China, and, more recently, South Korea. Expectations are high that Tesla could secure FSD approval in Europe sometime next year as well.
News
Elon Musk’s Boring Company reveals Prufrock TBM’s most disruptive feature
As it turns out, the tunneling startup, similar to other Elon Musk-backed ventures, is also dead serious about pursuing reusability.
The Boring Company has quietly revealed one of its tunnel boring machines’ (TBMs) most underrated feature. As it turns out, the tunneling startup, similar to other Elon Musk-backed ventures, is also dead serious about pursuing reusability.
Prufrock 5 leaves the factory
The Boring Company is arguably the quietest venture currently backed by Elon Musk, inspiring far fewer headlines than his other, more high-profile companies such as Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI. Still, the Boring Company’s mission is ambitious, as it is a company designed to solve the problem of congestion in cities.
To accomplish this, the Boring Company would need to develop tunnel boring machines that could dig incredibly quickly. To this end, the startup has designed Prufrock, an all-electric TBM that’s designed to eventually be fast enough as an everyday garden snail. Among TBMs, such a speed would be revolutionary.
The startup has taken a step towards this recently, when The Boring Company posted a photo of Prufrock-5 coming out of its Bastrop, Texas facility. “On a rainy day in Bastrop, Prufrock-5 has left the factory. Will begin tunneling by December 1. Hoping for a step function increase in speed,” the Boring Company wrote.
Prufrock’s quiet disruption
Interestingly enough, the Boring Company also mentioned a key feature of its Prufrock machines that makes them significantly more sustainable and reusable than conventional TBMs. As per a user on X, standard tunnel boring machines are often left underground at the conclusion of a project because retrieving them is usually more expensive and impractical than abandoning them in the location.
As per the Boring Company, however, this is not the case for its Prufrock machines, as they are retrieved, upgraded, and deployed again with improvements. “All Prufrocks are reused, usually with upgrades between launches. Prufrock-1 has now dug six tunnels,” the Boring Company wrote in its reply on X.
The Boring Company’s reply is quite exciting as it suggests that the TBMs from the tunneling startup could eventually be as reusable as SpaceX’s boosters. This is on brand for an Elon Musk-backed venture, of course, though the Boring Company’s disruption is a bit more underground.
Tesla is being accused of infringing robotics patents by a company called Perrone Robotics, which is based out of Charlottesville, Virginia.
The suit was filed in Alexandria, Virginia, and accuses Tesla of knowingly infringing upon five patents related to robotics systems for self-driving vehicles.
The company said its founder, Paul Perrone, developed general-purpose robotics operating systems for individual robots and automated devices.
Perrone Robotics claims that all Tesla vehicles utilizing the company’s Autopilot suite within the last six years infringe the five patents, according to a report from Reuters.
Tesla’s new Safety Report shows Autopilot is nine times safer than humans
One patent was something the company attempted to sell to Tesla back in 2017. The five patents cover a “General Purpose Operating System for Robotics,” otherwise known as GPROS.
The GPROS suite includes extensions for autonomous vehicle controls, path planning, and sensor fusion. One key patent, U.S. 10,331,136, was explicitly offered to Tesla by Perrone back in 2017, but the company rejected it.
The suit aims to halt any further infringements and seeks unspecified damages.
This is far from the first suit Tesla has been involved in, including one from his year with Perceptive Automata LLC, which accused Tesla of infringing on AI models to interpret pedestrian/cyclist intent via cameras without licensing. Tesla appeared in court in August, but its motion to dismiss was partially denied earlier this month.
Tesla also settled a suit with Arsus LLC, which accused Autopilot’s electronic stability features of infringing on rollover prevention tech. Tesla won via an inter partes review in September.
Most of these cases involve non-practicing entities or startups asserting broad autonomous vehicle patents against Tesla’s rapid iteration.
Tesla typically counters with those inter partes reviews, claiming invalidity. Tesla has successfully defended about 70 percent of the autonomous vehicle lawsuits it has been involved in since 2020, but settlements are common to avoid discovery costs.
The case is Perrone Robotics Inc v Tesla Inc, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, No. 25-02156. Tesla has not yet listed an attorney for the case, according to the report.
Elon Musk proposes Grok 5 vs world’s best League of Legends team match
Elon Musk’s Boring Company reveals Prufrock TBM’s most disruptive feature
