Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised): A Decade of Evolution and the Lingering Question of Trust
For nearly a decade, the automotive industry has been captivated by the promise of autonomous driving, a futuristic vision that seemed perpetually on the horizon. At the forefront of this technological revolution stands Tesla, consistently pushing the boundaries with its “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) software. After spending extensive time behind the wheel of a Tesla Model Y equipped with the latest iteration of FSD, I can definitively say that the system’s capabilities have reached a level that is, frankly, astonishing. Yet, despite this remarkable progress, I remain hesitant to wholeheartedly recommend its purchase or deem it a truly “self-driving” solution. This is a nuanced perspective forged from years of observing and testing automotive advancements, particularly in the realm of driver-assistance technologies.
The Uncanny Valley of Automotive AI
My journey with Tesla’s FSD began approximately 150 miles of simulated driving on public roads. For the vast majority of this distance, I relinquished control to the FSD system, intervening only for necessary parking maneuvers or, occasionally, to test its reactions in particularly challenging scenarios. The system tackled a bewildering array of complex traffic situations with a composure that was, at times, breathtaking. Navigating intricate intersections, merging seamlessly into fast-moving highway traffic, and reacting to unpredictable pedestrian and cyclist movements – the FSD system demonstrated a level of competence that often made me forget I was still the designated safety driver. Over those 150 miles, the number of critical interventions required was remarkably low, perhaps only two instances that necessitated immediate human takeover to ensure safety. This is a far cry from earlier iterations of driver-assistance systems, including Tesla’s own pioneering Autopilot, which I’ve critiqued in the past for what I perceived as an overabundance of confidence, misleading marketing, and a fundamental misunderstanding of legal autonomy.
While the core complaints of marketing overreach and the legal classification of “autonomous” still hold water today, the evolution of Tesla’s FSD is undeniable. What was once a sophisticated cruise control with lane-keeping assist has transformed into a system capable of managing nearly every facet of driving, all under the ever-watchful eye of a human supervisor. This journey has been fraught with its share of controversy, including numerous lawsuits and tragic accidents, some of which, in my professional opinion, might have been averted with a more conservative deployment strategy. Nevertheless, the technological strides made are substantial and, to a certain extent, have surpassed many expectations.
The Price of Progress: Value and Limitations
Let’s address the elephant in the room: the cost. Tesla’s FSD package commands a significant investment, historically an $8,000 upfront payment for what was marketed as “lifetime” access, or a recurring $99 monthly subscription. While some newer models, like the Model X and Model S, may now include this feature, the upfront investment for other Tesla vehicles remains substantial. The concept of “lifetime” access also warrants scrutiny. Given Tesla’s practice of not retrofitting older vehicles equipped with “Hardware 3” with the latest, most sophisticated software capabilities, “lifetime” access is contingent on the ongoing relevance of your vehicle’s hardware. Essentially, you’re purchasing FSD until Tesla deems your car’s onboard computers obsolete for the cutting-edge software.
Despite these caveats, it’s difficult to dismiss the value proposition entirely when no other manufacturer offers a consumer-accessible system with this level of capability. During my evaluation, I utilized FSD version 13.2.9, which, while not the absolute bleeding edge of development, provided a clear window into the refined state of Tesla’s AI-driven software. The experience was, in a word, remarkable. Highway driving was handled with an almost nonchalant ease, with only a single instance of a questionable late merge requiring my intervention. In urban environments, the system displayed a commendable level of caution at blind intersections and a patient demeanor at stop signs, navigating uncertainty with impressive adeptness.
The Gamble: When the AI Stumbles
The core dilemma with FSD, and indeed with many advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), lies in its inherent unpredictability. While the system consistently makes the safest decision in the vast majority of scenarios, there are moments when it deviates wildly from the expected. The crux of the problem is that, without a deep understanding of the system’s internal workings, drivers are often blindsided by these critical errors. This necessitates a level of constant vigilance that the average driver, conditioned by misleading marketing and the allure of a “self-driving” future, is simply not equipped to maintain.
This dynamic has been a recurring theme in reports and legal proceedings surrounding FSD. While Tesla maintains that its systems are not legally considered “driving” and that owners bear full responsibility for supervision, the reality on the road is far more complex. Each accident case is factually unique, and while the software has undoubtedly matured, it has also ventured deeper into the unnerving “uncanny valley.” The sheer rarity of mistakes can lull a driver into a false sense of security, leading to a gradual erosion of caution. Then, without warning, a sudden, critical error occurs – a near-miss with a merging vehicle or an attempt to turn left on a red light (even without cross-traffic) – demanding an immediate and forceful human response.
The fundamental challenge is this: without possessing an intuitive grasp of how the AI makes its decisions, predicting when it will err becomes an impossible task. Consequently, your vigilance must be absolute. But if you are truly engaging with the system in this manner – constantly anticipating potential pitfalls, keeping your hands poised for immediate intervention, and meticulously monitoring your mirrors – is this truly more relaxing or less demanding than simply driving the car yourself?
For me, the mental exertion of trying to anticipate the errors of a reasonably competent, yet fundamentally unpredictable, artificial intelligence proved to be as stressful as conventional driving. What’s more, it was undeniably more mundane. The inability to engage in secondary tasks like texting, glancing away, or even indulging in a moment of daydreaming, made time on FSD feel stretched and arduous. While the car handled the mechanics of driving, the mental burden of supervision left me feeling more taxed and less engaged than I would have been operating the vehicle manually.
The ultimate aspiration, of course, is to remove the human element from the driving equation entirely. This is the ambitious vision underpinning Tesla’s robotaxi pilot programs, such as the one currently being tested in Austin, Texas, and the long-term promise Elon Musk has dangled for years. While this future feels closer than ever, it remains tantalizingly out of reach. For now, drivers are relegated to a state of quiet, watchful anticipation, a curious blend of fending off potential collisions and battling their own encroaching boredom.
The Precarious Equilibrium
Earlier iterations of Tesla’s Autopilot, while more limited in scope, offered a greater degree of mental ease. Because I knew its limitations, I approached it as a highly sophisticated cruise control. There was a clear, understandable demarcation between what the system could handle and what it couldn’t.
Today, that line has blurred into an unsettling ambiguity. FSD’s proficiency across a broad spectrum of driving scenarios creates a natural inclination to relax and place trust in its capabilities. However, because the precise mechanisms of its decision-making remain opaque, genuine trust – the kind that allows for complete disengagement – is elusive. This is particularly true when the stakes involve the safety of oneself and others. The default mode becomes one of heightened alertness, a perpetual state of waiting for the inevitable slip-up.
Consider the frequency of these critical errors. In my 150-mile test drive, which spanned approximately five hours of cumulative driving time around the San Diego metropolitan area, I encountered two distinct instances requiring intervention. This translates to a critical error every 2.5 hours of “supervision.” Now, imagine asking the average consumer to remain completely focused and attentive for 2.5-hour stretches, with absolutely no opportunity for distraction. By the time a significant error occurs, how likely is it that the driver will be truly paying attention, ready to react with the speed and precision required?
This creates a deeply unsettling paradox: a system that is trustworthy enough to encourage a relaxing of vigilance, yet not sufficiently safe to be used without constant, active human supervision. This precarious balance leaves drivers in a state of perpetual uncertainty, a testament to the ongoing challenges in achieving true, unsupervised autonomous driving. The quest for a seamless, effortless autonomous driving experience continues, but for now, the driver remains an indispensable, albeit increasingly passive, participant.
As the automotive landscape continues its rapid transformation, the evolution of advanced driver-assistance systems is undeniably one of the most compelling narratives. While Tesla’s FSD has achieved feats that were once considered science fiction, the fundamental question of trust and the practicalities of supervision remain critical considerations for any potential buyer.
If you’re intrigued by the possibilities of advanced driver-assistance systems and want to understand how they might integrate into your daily commute, we encourage you to explore further. Consult with automotive technology specialists or schedule a test drive to experience these systems firsthand and form your own informed opinion.
