Former Tesla employees say full self-driving is nowhere near as capable as Elon Musk claims

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 2,025   +59
Staff
In brief: Tesla's Full Self-Driving software is still struggling with basic driving tasks, based on interviews with former employees who reviewed internal training footage and data. Their accounts, along with an analysis of Tesla's safety claims, suggest the technology is not as close to full autonomy as the company has publicly indicated. The findings also raise questions about how Tesla measures and markets the system's safety.

Inside a data-labeling office in Utah, hundreds of workers review footage captured by Tesla vehicles running FSD. The videos are used to train the company's neural networks, with staff tagging everything from routine driving behavior to critical failures. Former employees said those clips frequently showed the system making mistakes, including failures to respond to emergency vehicles, missed hazards, and last-second driver interventions.

Some of the footage was more serious. Workers described videos of Teslas striking animals or failing to slow down in time to avoid potential collisions with pedestrians. "We have all seen it fail," one former labeler told Reuters. Another said he wouldn't ride in a Tesla robotaxi "if you f---ing paid me." A former self-driving engineer who reviewed crash data for years was equally direct: "Definitely," the engineer said, "don't trust Elon on this."

Tesla relies on a camera-based system trained on real-world driving footage rather than lidar or detailed pre-mapped environments. The goal is to build a generalized AI model capable of handling any condition without prior knowledge of the area. But former workers said the system still has trouble with core perception and decision-making tasks, especially in more complex scenarios.

Those gaps have led to more targeted behind-the-scenes preparation, especially ahead of public demonstrations. Before Tesla's robotaxi pilot in Austin and a 2024 event at Warner Bros. studios, teams spent weeks collecting and annotating video from specific routes. Workers manually labeled lane markings, curbs, and traffic signals to help the system navigate those environments more reliably.

That level of route-specific tuning contrasts with Tesla's public messaging. CEO Elon Musk has described FSD as a "generalized AI solution" that does not require the high-definition maps used by competitors, which he has called "quite fragile." Former employees, however, said Tesla's most controlled demonstrations depended on detailed, localized preparation that would be difficult to scale.

The company has also promoted FSD as significantly safer than human driving, citing figures such as "10x safer" and "85% less crashes." A review of Tesla's methodology, supported by traffic-safety researchers, found that those claims rely on comparisons that are not directly equivalent.

Tesla, for example, counts crashes involving airbag deployment in its own vehicles but compares them with broader federal crash data, which includes less severe incidents. When comparable data is used, the gap narrows significantly. Even then, researchers said the comparison does not isolate the system's performance, since drivers can choose when to use FSD and often disengage it in more challenging situations.

Other factors further complicate the analysis. Tesla only counts crashes that occur while FSD is active or within five seconds of disengagement, while federal standards use a 30-second window. The company also compares its relatively new vehicles – averaging about four years old – to a much older US fleet.

Inside Tesla, progress on the system has been uneven, according to former employees. Metrics such as how often drivers need to intervene can fluctuate with each software update. "It would go up and down like the stock market," one worker said.

The company's robotaxi rollout reflects those limitations. In Austin, Tesla operates a small fleet within a defined, heavily trained service area, with human oversight still in place. Expansion into other Texas cities has been inconsistent, with reports of long wait times and vehicles failing to reach intended destinations within the advertised service zones.

Overall, the accounts from inside Tesla and the review of its safety data point to a system that can handle many routine driving situations but still struggles with edge cases. For now, Tesla's push toward full autonomy continues to rely heavily on human input – both from drivers and from the workers training the AI behind the scenes.

Permalink to story:

 
Another day, another anti-Musk article. I particularly like the absurd claim that Tesla is "fudging the numbers" because its four-year old vehicles are some 6 years newer than the 10-year old average of the national fleet, as if vehicles manufactured prior to 2021 cause their drivers to crash them much more often. And despite the ludicrous eye-popping claims by anonymous sources at article start, the fact remains that Tesla's FSD is at least 3X safer than human drivers.
 
The article does not contain a single verifiable fact.
It's a restatement of what anonymous people who allegedly worked for Tesla allegedly claimed - even with hallucinated speech.

It's totally unclear whether these people exist at all. It's totally unclear who interviewed them and what they were asked. It's totally unclear where we can see the footage that allegedly proves the anonymous claims.
If we frivolously assume these ex-employees really exist and really saw what the article claims, when that happened? Any problem older than 6 months is almost certainly fixed and irrelevant.

Any 'the dog ate my homework' claim is far more believable than this.
 
The article does not contain a single verifiable fact.
There have been problems with FSD and I believe they've dropped dramatically since V14 was released 6 months ago. Even before that update was released though, here's a video compilation of over 50 animals not hit by FSD (aka verifiable, despite the article's claim otherwise):

The most "serious" driving issues I've noticed from YouTubers lately are all based on hard to see objects especially while parking (ie. chains), or rare navigation issues. The YouTubers reviewing software updates demonstrate FSD issues in every video they post by always putting it into situations difficult for FSD to handle. When they're solved, they keep them in the video for regression testing. In the real world, these issues are addressed by having a driver that's paying attention at all (which the vehicle monitors for), and an inevitable software update in the future.
 
The article does not contain a single verifiable fact.
It's a restatement of what anonymous people who allegedly worked for Tesla allegedly claimed - even with hallucinated speech.

This is not unfair criciticism. However, given the choice of informing the public anonymously vs exposing yourself to almost certain litigation by Space Karen in any Maga rubber stamp golf buddy judge district of his choice, where even the slightest chance of a fair outcome could still easily turn financially ruinous because legal fees are not reimbursed, it's not crazy to go with the first option.
 
This is not unfair criciticism. However, given the choice of informing the public anonymously vs exposing yourself to almost certain litigation by Space Karen in any Maga rubber stamp golf buddy judge district of his choice, where even the slightest chance of a fair outcome could still easily turn financially ruinous because legal fees are not reimbursed, it's not crazy to go with the first option.
It's not a secret that these kinds of things occasionally happen lol. Tesla allows any and all footage of FSD (in the past when it was closed alpha, they did not). So what happens when a former employee--one who was designated to review every issue with the software, add metadata to improve it, and has most certainly signed an NDA--goes public with their work? That's breaking a contract, only damages the company, and does not benefit investors nor the public.

Going public would not make these employees whistleblowers as you describe because Tesla was not breaking any laws. In fact part of their job is for compliance with NHTSA. How do you think Tesla is able to report on safety information to the government if they aren't able to categories/add metadata to collected footage?
 
This is not unfair criciticism. However, given the choice of informing the public anonymously vs exposing yourself to almost certain litigation by Space Karen in any Maga rubber stamp golf buddy judge district of his choice, where even the slightest chance of a fair outcome could still easily turn financially ruinous because legal fees are not reimbursed, it's not crazy to go with the first option.
We have no reason whatsoever to assume anyone actually had such a choice. The whole thing probably comes straight from somebody's imagination, none of it ever happened.

If it were true, it would be easy to find people to testify. But more importantly, we would know it's true because we'd be seeing a massacre on the streets as unsafe Tesla's run over people.
Do we see that?
Well .. no, we don't, even though the smallest incidents get blown out of proportion. If the alleged lack of safety has no observable consequences, it's apparently not there at all.
 
This is not unfair criciticism. However, given the choice of informing the public anonymously vs exposing yourself to almost certain litigation by Space Karen in any Maga rubber stamp golf buddy judge district of his choice, where even the slightest chance of a fair outcome could still easily turn financially ruinous because legal fees are not reimbursed, it's not crazy to go with the first option.
Absolutely valid. Take the lesson from China https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-sues-customers-journalists-china-defamation/
But then there's this - https://autoworldjournal.com/tesla-faces-lawsuit-over-misleading-fsd-claims/
 
This is not unfair criciticism. However, given the choice of informing the public anonymously vs exposing yourself to almost certain litigation by Space Karen in any Maga rubber stamp golf buddy judge district of his choice
What causes people to espouse inane tinfoil hat theories like this?

Once again, you've embarrassed yourself by failing to read your links. Do you believe Musk is using "Maga golf buddy connections" to hand-pick judges in CCP China?

Musk won these cases because the journalists lied, plain and simple. When Chinese police determine that an accident was the drivers fault -- FSD had never even been engaged -- and a journalist lies and blames it on "faulty brakes", Tesla has a right to sue -- and win.
 
Last edited:
What a bunch of fanbois. "Here's a video compilation of over 50 animals not hit by FSD (aka verifiable, despite the article's claim otherwise)". The article didn't claim Teslas ran into every single animal. Of course they don't. Neither do humans. Or even that it's all that frequent; just pointing out some room for improvement there really. Doubting ex-employees even existed? So much hand wringing here. And the "Well, this was a problem, but it's been fixed recently". Well, good, it should improve over time. But Musk has claimed these were incredibly safe for many years now, so viewing the "that was from 6 months ago so it's not a problem" with some healthy skepticism is, well, healthy.

My concern personally isn't these corner cases where there's some tricky situation where it COULD have done something better than it did, or like one I saw where it ran into a vehicle but was completely blinded by glare until it was right up it's bumper. What troubles me is the cases where it still acts all crazy in construction zones, rear ends ambulances, etc., I.e. those points where the FSD just goes off the rails now and then.

It's also completely valid to point out when the numbers are SEVERELY massaged for Tesla's safety claims, and yes pointint out FSD is disengaged in more challenging conditions, that they compare older 'other cars' with newer Teslas, only count accidents with air bag deployments against as many accidents as they can pull up for other vehicles, are valid. And that Tesla's (hand driven) aleady get in like 1/2 the number of accidents... can't complain about that, but it does conflate the safety of FSD versus the safety of the Tesla not being a bloated, top-heavy SUV that's hard to control in emergency conditions.

Don't get me wrong, these articles are a hit piece to some extent. But the points they bring up are valid, and counteract the 'Tesla can do no wrong' pieces that I see Tesla afficionados come up with. Here come the downvotes!!! (Oh Techspot doesn't have them. OK here comes the nearly 0 upvotes!!!)
 
Last edited:
The article didn't claim Teslas ran into every single animal. Of course they don't. Neither do humans.
Your reading skills have failed you. Teslas run into animals far less than humans do. Also pedestrians and other vehicles. That's the entire point.

....Doubting ex-employees even existed?
Oops again! No one doubted that any ex-employees exist, but that the specific ones making allegations do.

...And the "Well, this was a problem, but it's been fixed recently". Well, good, but Musk has claimed these were incredibly safe for many years now.
And they are -- safer than a human driver, that is. Human drivers kill one million people a year worldwide. And articles like this are helping ensure that horrific bloodbath continues.

What troubles me is the cases where it still acts all crazy in construction zones, rear ends ambulances, etc.,
None of those have resulted in any fatalities. And unlike human drivers, which continue to make the same mistakes decade after decade, each time one of these problems is discovered, it's added to the model and corrected.

It's also completely valid [to] pointint out FSD is disengaged in more challenging conditions, that they compare older 'other cars' with newer Teslas...
What absurd logic chain led you to believe that's relevant?

...[and] only count accidents with air bag deployments against as many accidents as they can pull up for other vehicles....
That's not what happened. They compared to NTSB accidents severe enough that a tow truck was required to remove the vehicle.
 
Another day, another anti-Musk article. I particularly like the absurd claim that Tesla is "fudging the numbers" because its four-year old vehicles are some 6 years newer than the 10-year old average of the national fleet, as if vehicles manufactured prior to 2021 cause their drivers to crash them much more often. And despite the ludicrous eye-popping claims by anonymous sources at article start, the fact remains that Tesla's FSD is at least 3X safer than human drivers.

I mean he is an utter major pleb. You are also comparing millions of individual drivers in large set of driving scenarios to thousands of Teslas. It isn't a fair comparison.

Stop glorifying billionaires, I understand, it's difficult, I used to be a fanboy too but then I actually looked at it and realised he isn't really what his PR team painted him to be.
 
I mean he is an utter major pleb. You are also comparing millions of individual drivers in large set of driving scenarios to thousands of Teslas. It isn't a fair comparison.
Learn statistics. Even if your figures were correct, the comparison would still be valid: a statistical universe of 1000 datapoints is nearly as accurate as one with several million or billion.

But your figures aren't accurate -- there are over seven million Teslas on the road, and this data encompasses them all.

Stop glorifying billionaires,
Stop promulgating juvenile security beliefs that are utterly contradicted by fact.
 
Learn statistics. Even if your figures were correct, the comparison would still be valid; a statistical universe of "a few thousand" datapoints is almost nearly as accurate as one with several million or billion.

But your figures aren't accurate -- there are over seven million Teslas on the road, and this data encompasses them all.

It isn't tho.

Stop indulging in juvenile security beliefs that are utterly contradicted by fact.

That he should be glorified and held as some national or better yet, global hero?
 
It isn't tho.
Don't spread disinformation:

"...Tesla's ⁠Full Self-Driving (Supervised) Vehicle Safety Report includes data for all vehicles operating with specific active safety or driver-assistance configurations, excluding only those in manual driving mode without active systems engaged.

"...all Teslas manufactured since Sept 2014 include active safety feature systems...."


That he should be glorified and held as some national or better yet, global hero?
I realize spite and envy is the natural reaction of some people towards those more successful than them, but Musk is the only person to found four separate multi-billion dollar tech firms. Tesla was the first (and arguably still the only) firm able to profitably produce EVs, and their manufacturing innovations are transforming the industry. Starlink has given us the first low-latency Internet service available globally; SpaceX is the sole reason the US isn't now dependent on Russia to transport our own astronauts to and from the ISS; and Neuralink is performing medical miracles for many of the disabled.

These are facts. Sorry they upset you.
 
Don't spread disinformation:

"...Tesla's ⁠Full Self-Driving (Supervised) Vehicle Safety Report includes data for all vehicles operating with specific active safety or driver-assistance configurations, excluding only those in manual driving mode without active systems engaged.

"...all Teslas manufactured since Sept 2014 include active safety feature systems...."



I realize spite and envy is the natural reaction of some people towards those more successful than them, but Musk is the only person to found four separate multi-billion dollar tech firms. Tesla was the first (and arguably still the only) firm able to profitably produce EVs, and their manufacturing innovations are transforming the industry. Starlink has given us the first low-latency Internet service available globally; SpaceX is the sole reason the US isn't now dependent on Russia to transport our own astronauts to and from the ISS; and Neuralink is performing medical miracles for many of the disabled.

These are facts. Sorry they upset you.

You're literally glorifying the King of Disinformation, oh the irony. So once again, data on a smaller dataset vs millions of vehicles is not acurate.

If I didn't know any better, Id say you are paid to shill. But the reality is, just like majority of MAGA supporters, you really do believe it.
 
Don't spread disinformation:

"...Tesla's ⁠Full Self-Driving (Supervised) Vehicle Safety Report includes data for all vehicles operating with specific active safety or driver-assistance configurations, excluding only those in manual driving mode without active systems engaged.

"...all Teslas manufactured since Sept 2014 include active safety feature systems...."



I realize spite and envy is the natural reaction of some people towards those more successful than them, but Musk is the only person to found four separate multi-billion dollar tech firms. Tesla was the first (and arguably still the only) firm able to profitably produce EVs, and their manufacturing innovations are transforming the industry. Starlink has given us the first low-latency Internet service available globally; SpaceX is the sole reason the US isn't now dependent on Russia to transport our own astronauts to and from the ISS; and Neuralink is performing medical miracles for many of the disabled.

These are facts. Sorry they upset you.

You say not to spread disinformation and proudly end with "these are facts" ok then, so let’s look at some actual facts.

First, Musk didn’t even found Tesla. Eberhard and Tarpenning did in 03. Musk was an early investor then later sued for the right to call himself a co-founder. If you’re going to put one on a pedestal, you should probably get the resume right. Yes, I know.. age old debate.

Second, regarding the safety data.. comparing a highly curated dataset of FSD/Autopilot driving history (which heavily over indexes on a safer, divided highway driving in newer cars) against the national average of all driving (which includes all weather conditions, all road types, and 20 year old cars) is an apples to oranges statistics manipulation. A smaller, cherry picked dataset compared to millions of random vehicle scenarios is the literal definition of skewed data.

Finally, assuming that anyone who critiques a billionaire is just full of "envy" is just a massive copout. It doesn't require a "spiteful" mind to point out that a billionaire amplifies disinformation on a social media platform he bought, or to criticise the massive environmental and societal damage left in their path of accumulating unchecked wealth. I don't envy him, Bezos, or any of them. But I do find it genuinely fascinating and rather a little sad to see the blind dedication it takes to aggressively defend a billionaire who doesn't know you exist.

The alternative motive is that you are a paid shill which wouldn't surprise me in the speed of responses you have been outputting to defend the said billionaire.

PS: I don't deny the technological leaps made in EVs, space ventures, connectivity etc.. those are real industry shifts. But acknowledging these milestones doesn't require turning a blind eye to the actual issues and massive damage being caused by the unchecked wealth. That is my issue.

That and Musk being (like I already said) King Bullshitter. The man literally said he is the (one of the) best Diablo players while being carried (multiple times).
 
Last edited:
You're literally glorifying the King of Disinformation, oh the irony. So once again, data on a smaller dataset vs millions of vehicles is not acurate [sic]

If I didn't know any better, Id say you are paid to shill. But the reality is, just like majority of MAGA supporters, you really do believe it.
It's clear you don't understand the concept of a T-value in statistics, or that the Tesla crash dataset encompasses several million vehicles. If your statement was correct, no poll in human history would ever be meaningful, as these generally contain ~1000 datapoints, yet have a mathematically quantifiable error range.

Again: I'm stating easily verifiable facts. Put on your big boy pants and deal with them.
First, Musk didn’t even found Tesla. Eberhard and Tarpenning did in 03.
When Musk joined Tesla, it was a "company" with zero products and zero manufacturing capability, just a few drawings on paper. When Musk took over entirely, it was a bankrupt firm that had produced a grand total of six vehicles, and without the money to deliver a dozen others they'd already taken money for. All the major innovations that made Tesla what it is -- Gigapress manufacturing, vertical integration of battery production, the pivot from ultra-exclusive sports cars to the wider consumer market, etc -- came from Musk.

Not that this matters. What matters is Musk took the firm from a valuation of below zero to $1.33 trillion dollars.

Finally, assuming that anyone who critiques a billionaire is just full of "envy" is just a massive copout.
You're not "critiquing" Musk. You're spreading hate and disinformation.
 
Last edited:
What a bunch of fanbois. "Here's a video compilation of over 50 animals not hit by FSD (aka verifiable, despite the article's claim otherwise)". The article didn't claim Teslas ran into every single animal.
[...]
Don't get me wrong, these articles are a hit piece to some extent. But the points they bring up are valid, and counteract the 'Tesla can do no wrong' pieces that I see Tesla afficionados come up with. Here come the downvotes!!! (Oh Techspot doesn't have them. OK here comes the nearly 0 upvotes!!!)
How am I a "fanboi" if I literally point out the flaws in Tesla's system in the very same post? It is literally the first few words in my post. In fact in every other sentence of that post BESIDES the one sentence you quoted, I am discussing these flaws. Your out of context reply to my post is incredibly disingenuous.

Not only is this kind of article a hit piece to some extent as you say, it's also terrible reporting with no evidence to back it up. The comment you cited was literally just a reply to a quote showing something that is "verifiable", which is that the software clearly tries to avoid animals. Then you hallucinated while reading my post into thinking I say the article claims Teslas hits every animal it comes across? The article only describes bad behaviors by the software. I never did portray what it wrote until just now because I thought it was self-evident to the reader.

And you're saying the point of this article is to counteract biased news sources? That's not why I read TechSpot. I don't read from news sources that "Tesla afficionados come up with" like Teslarati or whatever else you're thinking of. Even if TechSpot was trying to do that, the source of this article (disgruntled employees working at an undisclosed timeframe) is biased as hell so it's just as bad. This "news" isn't newsworthy; we all know Tesla's autonomy software isn't perfect.
I mean he is an utter major pleb. You are also comparing millions of individual drivers in large set of driving scenarios to thousands of Teslas. It isn't a fair comparison.

Stop glorifying billionaires, I understand, it's difficult, I used to be a fanboy too but then I actually looked at it and realised he isn't really what his PR team painted him to be.
You realize there are also millions of Teslas in the US, right? Furthermore, there are 1.3 million active FSD subscriptions, predominantly in the US. This is from Tesla's most recent quarterly report. This is not a small sample size lmao. I also find it funny how as soon as someone else confronted your claims, you claimed they were glorifying disinformation and changed the topic to avoid reality.
 
Breaking news: billionaire CEO lies about his product and water is wet.
In other news : I'll never buy a tesla anyway so who cares.
I would not call it a lie. If you were selling a highly advanced product, you would tell about its advantages rather than shortcomings. 20 years ago we could only see self driving cars in he movies. Today, they are slowly pushing for 99% safe self-driving.
 
Other than "cruise control" the human should be in charge of the operation of the vehicle.
Not some d*mn computer.
Until they get to the "Johnny Cab" version FORGET IT!
 
Back