My stalker Aaron Jacob Greenspan and his fraudulent charity PlainSite have been hard at work on some new FSD misinformation that Green and a few others have commented on, so I wanted to share my thoughts with you here today. Greenspan and his short-selling “charity” have published the results of a freedom of information act request that includes communications between Tesla and the DMV from November of last year regarding Tesla’s new FSD Beta features. His reason for doing this is to confuse people or make Tesla appear dishonest or inconsistent in its messaging. In fact, there is nothing strange or unusual about what Tesla said, and i’ll explain why.
Greenspan is a shockingly dishonest extremist
First, it’s important to note where the information is coming from. Aaron Greenspan is one of the most shockingly dishonest people you could ever imagine. Before he started harassing, stalking, threatening and blackmailing me I didn’t realize one human being could be capable of so much hatred and bitterness, or that a single person could lie so much –– both to others and himself.
Though he does his best to avoid disclosing it by disguising his organization as a charity, there is absolutely nothing charitable about it. Aaron Greenspan is a short seller whose only objective in putting out information is to make Tesla’s stock go down so that he and his short-seller buddies who donate to his “charity” can try and make a few bucks on their shitputs. Everything he says about Tesla must be viewed through the lens of this personal animus.
Greenspan is an extremist who not only pushes false negative information about Tesla, but has also lead a campaign to try and harm Tesla’s customers. He pushes hateful rhetoric calling Tesla customers “cult members” and encourages short sellers to try and harm them or threaten them by sharing their personal information with volatile Tesla short sellers. These short sellers are angry after losing so much money based on the bad advice of people like Aaron Greenspan, Keith Watson, and Lawrence Fossi and are eager to blow off some steam by sending death threats and attacking the families of anyone Greenspan tells them to target. Greenspan routinely attempts to delegitimize his opposition and silence his critics by pushing absurd conspiracy theories, such as that Tesla customers are paid by Tesla and Elon Musk to say good things about the company instead of genuinely enjoying the products.
Aaron Greenspan is a dangerous criminal, and I worry that my life may be in danger by speaking out against him. He will do anything to silence his critics and hide negative information about himself and his charity. For more information, check out the Aaron Greenspan story. I apologize for the delay, but Chapter 8 will be coming soon. It will be the climax of the story.
Did Tesla Admit FSD Will Never be Autonomous?
The crux of the latest FSD FUD is that Tesla told everyone they wanted to make the cars operate without a driver someday, but when talking to regulators they downplayed the capabilities as just a driver assistance system. While TSLAQ may attempt to confuse people, there is in fact no contradiction between Tesla’s long-term autonomy ambitions and their communications with regulators.
From the beginning, Tesla has always made it clear that their long-term goal is to make Autopilot so reliable that the software can drive the car around without any human driver or passengers inside –– so-called “Level 5” driving. However, that is not where we are today. Today Autopilot, and even FSD Beta, are driver assistance systems that require human monitoring. This is abundantly clear to all Autopilot users, and there is no contradiction between Tesla’s long-term ambitions for the software and what has been released today.
In reality, the SAE Levels of Autonomy are a poor description of the complexity of autonomous software systems. It is laughable to suggest that all software-based drivers can be categorized as either 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, and that this is some sort of linear checklist on the way to autonomy. That is just one way to describe the level of human involvement, but obviously, the qualities of different software packages have much more nuance than a simple 1 to 5 scale.
So if Tesla wants Autopilot to be truly Level 5 autonomous someday, why do they describe it to regulators as a driver assistance system today? Why did they only report 12 autonomous miles last year? Doesn’t that mean they’re way behind on autonomy?
In a word, no. Tesla’s objective in communicating with regulators is simple: To make sure they understand what the software is today, and to make sure they can release the software to customers as soon as possible. Sure, Tesla could talk about how they want to make the system Level 5 one day, but how does that help them with regulators today? It just serves to confuse the issue and delay the rollout of this life-saving technology. If it helps Tesla to describe the system as driver assistance, then they should describe it as driver assistance.
Why? Because at the end of the day, it is actually driver assistance today. The way it’s set up is that a human is supervising it, so if it helps to call it driver assistance or “Level 2” from a regulatory perspective then there is no problem describing it that way. Many in the industry would accurately describe the most advanced Autopilot features released today as “Level 3-ish” or “Level 2 Plus”, but that’s neither here nor there for the purposes of regulatory approval.
This does not at all mean that Tesla has given up on achieving Level 5 long-term –– we know Tesla will keep putting out software updates to make the system more and more reliable until less attention is required. They’re just trying to accurately describe the system to regulators so that they understand this is just an update to their driver assistance system that adds more functionality, like right and left turns on city streets.
12 Autonomous Miles
I often see a similarly misleading argument made with respect to California’s autonomous miles / disengagements reports. California requires all autonomous cars operating in the state to report how many miles they’ve driven autonomously, and how many disengagements there were in those miles.
Because all autonomous cars are different, the areas they’re being tested are different, and the differences between a generalized system and a specialized system are vast, comparing these statistics among various brands is close to meaningless. Waymo and others have often made this point, and rightly so –– they are correct. Regardless, the public still views these reports as a sort of report card. If you try and do harder situations and have more disengagements, you will look bad even though you’re actually working harder to get the software to work anywhere. That’s why Tesla is not interested in reporting this data if they don’t have to by law.
Instead, they will report that Tesla has 0 autonomous miles most years, or in the case of last year 12 miles for the Autonomy Day demo video. Why report the bare minimum? Does this mean Tesla is way behind on autonomy? No, it just means they don’t want to report. If you can get away with not sharing this data by testing the system in driver assistance mode rather than autonomous mode, there’s nothing wrong with taking advantage of that. Because of Tesla’s large fleet of real production cars running Autopilot, this is something Tesla can do that others cannot.
Whether the software is running in “autonomous mode” or as a driver assistance system does not change how it drives. Once the software is highly reliable, the restrictions on paying attention and holding the wheel can be lifted with the flip of a switch.
A Great FUD Storm is Coming
The bottom line is this: Tesla short sellers are scared. They’re so scared they had to go waste their time digging up government documents to try and downplay the reality of what’s happening with Tesla’s FSD Beta. They know they have to stop FSD Beta, because it’s going to change the world –– and when it does, they’re toast. This is nothing new –– Tesla short-sellers have been trying to stop Autopilot and spreading FUD about it for years. That’s why they’ve submitted fake defect petitions to the government, including one that Aaron Greenspan helped submit to NHTSA under my name and later posted on his charity’s website.
That’s how disgusting Tesla short sellers are. They would lie to the government, a criminal act, to stop this life saving technology –– all to try and make a few bucks on their short selling bets. That’s who we are dealing with –– people like Aaron Greenspan who would be happy to see people die as long as they can make a few bucks on it.
Prepare for a FUD storm of epic proportions as TSLAQ does everything they can to stop FSD from deploying across the United States, and across the world.