The car made a fatal decision faster than any human could possibly correct it. Tesla’s idea that drivers can “supervise” these systems is, at this point, nothing more than a legal loophole.

What I don’t get is how this false advertising for years hasn’t caused Tesla bankruptcy already?

Well, because 99% of the time, it’s fairly decent. That 1%'ll getchya tho.

To put your number into perspective, if it only failed 1 time in every hundred miles, it would kill you multiple times a week with the average commute distance.

Someone who doesn't understand math downvoted you. This is the right framework to understand autonomy, the failure rate needs to be astonishingly low for the product to have any non-negative value. So far, Tesla has not demonstrated non-negative value in a credible way.

You are trying to judge the self driving feature in a vacuum. And you can’t do that. You need to compare it to any alternatives. And for automotive travel, the alternative to FSD is to continue to have everyone drive manually. Turns out, most clowns doing that are statistically worse at it than even FDS, (as bad as it is). So, FSD doesn’t need to be perfect-- it just needs to be a bit better than what the average driver can do driving manually. And the last time I saw anything about that, FSD was that “bit better” than you statistically.

FSD isn’t perfect. No such system will ever be perfect. But, the goal isn’t perfect, it just needs to be better than you.

FSD isn’t perfect. No such system will ever be perfect. But, the goal isn’t perfect, it just needs to be better than you.

Yeah people keep bringing that up as a counter arguement but I’m pretty certain humans don’t swerve off a perfectly straight road into a tree all that often.

So unless you have numbers to suggest that humans are less safe than FSD then you’re being equally obtuse.

Humans do swerve off perfectly straight roads into trees, I know because I’ve done it!