Why Some Contend That Elon Musk Is Setting Up A Regulatory Boogieman As Scapegoat For Continued Delay In Tesla’s Self-Driving Car Promise

A tweet by Elon Musk this recent Easter weekend has sprung forth an erstwhile Easter egg hunt by the media and industry about the self-driving car status of Tesla.

Let’s first consider the self-driving car ambitions of Tesla and then get to Musk’s latest tweet.

Turn back the clock by about seven months or so.

During a Tesla earnings call in October of last year (that’s 2019), Elon Musk had indicated this about the Tesla-coined FSD (Full Self-Driving) status: “While it’s going to be tight, it still does appear that will be at least in limited early access release of a feature complete self-driving feature this year” (the reference to “this year” meant the year 2019, since the comment was made in 2019).

That hedged promise did not seem to come to fruition in 2019.

There is also the ongoing lack of clarification about what a “feature complete” kind of self-driving portends since there is no clear-cut definition of this rather vague and made-up phrase (it isn’t any recognizable vernacular or industry parlance, certainly not codified by self-driving car industry standards, so essentially a nebulous Musk-phraseology non-specified enigma).

The only shard of a clue might be that Musk also suggested the Tesla’s might be “able to be autonomous but requiring supervision and intervention at times,” as part of the feature complete notion.

As a background about self-driving, it is important to realize that of the officially defined levels of autonomy per the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) standard, if a self-driving car needs a human driver, the self-driving car is said to be semi-autonomous and not fully autonomous.

Since Musk was indicating that a Tesla embodying a “feature complete” self-driving capability would also require that a human driver supervise and be ready to intervene, it would be best to say that the Tesla’s would be semi-autonomous so as to not conflate with the type of self-driving car that is truly autonomous.

That’s why using just the word “autonomous” by itself is not a good way to express things, since it then creates ambiguity around whether the vehicle will be either semi-autonomous or fully autonomous.

Furthermore, in some respects, using just the word autonomous by itself can mislead by implying that a car is intending to be fully autonomous (meaning that a human driver is not needed, at all, for any reason), given that most people would infer that the word “autonomous” in of itself carries the notion of being wholly autonomous.

It might seem like splitting hairs to be grinding one’s teeth about the autonomous usage, but the wording does foretell a huge difference (see my coverage about this matter, via the link here).

What would be clearer for all parties would be for Musk and Tesla to simply adopt the use of the levels of autonomy as defined by the SAE official standard, which I’ll explain in a moment.

As an aside, please know that there are some critics of the SAE standard that assert it ought to be replaced with an even more definitive set of levels, yet, despite that desire to be more stringent, nonetheless, the existing standard does provide a handy means of generally agreeing to what constitutes (for now) a measurable set of levels of autonomy. Thus, anyone that might try to use that criticism to entirely escape from referring to those existing levels is playing a kind of game, as it were, using the critics of the standard as a type of false protective shield to wave their hands in the air.

Some contend that the ambiguous wording by Musk and Tesla about the intended capabilities of the FSD is not somehow accidental and nor incidental. Rather, the belief is that the wording is purposeful and intentionally aiming to be hazy, allowing the firm to not be pinned down on any specifics.

In a sense, it might be likened to political speech that embraces broad platitudes and avoids any brass tacks, providing maximal flexibility and what some would refer to as the wink-wink form of plausible deniability.

In any case, subsequent to the statement by Musk on that earnings call, he later indicated that rather than the earlier prediction of things happening by the end of 2019 (which, yes, was hedged by his having said “it does still appear” in his initial claim), instead, the new target would be sometime in 2020.

Supporters would likely say that he’s being forthright and candid and that it is obviously difficult to predict when this extremely complex software can be readied, especially for something as life-or-death and monumental as being able to aid in driving a car.

Others might counter with the point that this is a shell game of moving around the peanut to distract, and maybe there isn’t any peanut sitting under the shells, or that the real date is perhaps in 2021 or 2022, but to pacify and keep people eagerly engaged that the drip-drip of make a date and then move the date is being teased.

Latest Musings By Musk On Tesla FSD

Fast forward to the Easter weekend of April 2020.

In response to a tweeted question about the latest status of FSD for Tesla’s, Musk responded with this tweet: “Functionality still looking good for this year. Regulatory approval is the big unknown.”

For those that read the tea leaves, once again there is a hedge in the “looking good” portion of his remark.

Looking good could mean that things will happen by “this year” or could be interpreted to suggest that at this moment things are seemingly on-track, but that he’s implying there’s some chance it might not proceed apace, and therefore at a later time this year it will be readily possible to say that things took a bit of a turn and the date gets pushed further out, becoming perhaps an indefinite 2021 date.

There is also again the ambiguity about what will even be delivered per se since the word “functionality” has little definitive meaning and takes things back into the morass of what the feature complete and FSD actually consist of.

Presumably, it might be possible to showcase something that will be labeled as “functionality” within this year, hitting thusly the suggested promise, and yet the functionality might be a far cry from and a lot less than what seems to otherwise be implied as self-driving capabilities.

It’s a wording that has lots of handy room for ambiguity and loose interpretation.

Supporters would likely applaud his willingness to share the latest status and emphasize that there’s only so much one can say in a short tweet. Don’t get so finicky and peck apart the wording, they might insist.

Many in the media certainly seemed to look past these semantic hedges and proclaimed that Musk indicated that the Tesla fleet of self-driving cars could be ready by the end of this year.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda, some critics say.

In any case, there is a subtle aspect to the tweet that few are perhaps giving its due.

Like driving on a lengthy stretch of open highway and seeing a distant object that’s not quite yet in focus, the tweet contains a reference to regulatory approval, doing so as almost an aside.

As part of the ongoing rendition about Tesla and Musk, be aware that there have been many occasions whereby the firm and its CEO have made various remarks about potential regulatory aspects, including the notion that regulations are likely to impinge on the self-driving ambitions of Tesla (and, in theory, the rest of the self-driving car industry too).

Maybe it’s time to more closely tackle that distant thing called regulatory approval, as it pertains particularly to Tesla, and see if via the use of a phrase-unpacking telescope we can bring the topic closer into focus.

Before doing so, let’s take a moment to clarify the levels of self-driving cars and their autonomy.

The Levels Of Self-Driving Cars

True self-driving cars are ones that the AI drives the car entirely on its own and there isn’t any human assistance during the driving task.

These driverless vehicles are considered a Level 4 and Level 5, while a car that requires a human driver to co-share the driving effort is usually considered at a Level 2 or Level 3. The cars that co-share the driving task are described as being semi-autonomous, and typically contain a variety of automated add-on’s that are referred to as ADAS (Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems).

There is not yet a true self-driving car at Level 5, which we don’t yet even know if this will be possible to achieve, and nor how long it will take to get there.

Meanwhile, the Level 4 efforts are gradually trying to get some traction by undergoing very narrow and selective public roadway trials, though there is controversy over whether this testing should be allowed per se (we are all life-or-death guinea pigs in an experiment taking place on our highways and byways, some point out).

Since semi-autonomous cars require a human driver, the adoption of those types of cars won’t be markedly different than driving conventional vehicles, so there’s not much new per se to cover about them on this topic (though, as you’ll see in a moment, the points next made are generally applicable).

For semi-autonomous cars, it is important that the public needs to be forewarned about a disturbing aspect that’s been arising lately, namely that in spite of those human drivers that keep posting videos of themselves falling asleep at the wheel of a Level 2 or Level 3 car, we all need to avoid being misled into believing that the driver can take away their attention from the driving task while driving a semi-autonomous car.

You are the responsible party for the driving actions of the vehicle, regardless of how much automation might be tossed into a Level 2 or Level 3.

Self-Driving Cars And Musk On Regulatory Approvals

For Level 4 and Level 5 true self-driving vehicles, there won’t be a human driver involved in the driving task.

All occupants will be passengers.

The AI is doing the driving.

Existing Tesla’s are not Level 4 and nor are they Level 5.

Most would classify them as Level 2 today.

What difference does that make?

Well, if you have a true self-driving car (Level 4 and Level 5), one that is being driven solely by the AI, there is no need for a human driver and indeed no interaction between the AI and a human driver.

For a Level 2 car, the human driver is still in the driver’s seat.

Furthermore, the human driver is considered the responsible party for driving that car.

The twist that’s going to mess everyone up is that the AI might seem to be able to drive the Level 2 car, meanwhile, it cannot, and thus the human driver still must be attentive and act as though they are driving the car.

With that as a crucial backdrop, given the haziness of whatever it is that Tesla is going to deliver if a human driver is still needed, this means that the “self-driving” is going to either be an enhanced version of Level 2 or maybe be a Level 3.

But, definitely not a Level 4 and nor a Level 5, assuming that the Tesla capability will require the presence of a human driver at the wheel.

Anyway, shift attention to the other element of this discussion, the aspect of regulatory approval.

Revisit the recent tweet of Musk, which said this: “Functionality still looking good for this year. Regulatory approval is the big unknown.”

Given that the tweet was sent out during the Easter weekend, we should presumably be ready to go down the rabbit hole to pursue its meaning.

Keep in mind that we do so with this handicap involved:

  1. The nature of the so-called feature complete and the FSD is nebulous
  2. The proposed date or estimated delivery date is nebulous
  3. The aspects of “regulatory approval” are also nebulous

It’s a veritable trifecta of nebulousness, or maybe even nebulousness cubed.

In any case, here’s what some contend.

We all generally perceive the government and regulations as a hurdle to progress and innovation (I’m not saying that’s necessarily true, only that it is commonly perceived as such).

This somewhat anti-regulatory viewpoint is especially exhibited or at least touted by a maverick company like Tesla and a maverick person like Musk, and seemingly equally embraced by the maverick-like supporters that relish this passionate maverick-flavor thereof.

Could the use of a regulatory boogieman be a clever underlying element of a strategy that figures if the technical stuff continues to be arduous to get completed, it will be “easy” to switch over to the pretense that regulations are the source of the delays and not the actual technical roadblocks instead?

In essence, put out there a scapegoat, one not yet invoked, yet sitting at the ready, and when or if the time is rife, stoke it into the world sphere for all its worth.

Admittedly, this does have some sense to it.

How can an entity or person keep pushing out dates of delivery, and do so without ultimately getting harshly dinged for the continuing series of delays?

Well, that’s easy, just blame the matter on those bureaucratic paper-pushers.

The beauty of such an excuse is that it seems to ring true in many ways, namely that the public already has a predisposition that regulations are oftentimes stifling and that it seems that many “new” innovations have only arisen via the flouting of existing laws and regulations (for example, some would argue vehemently that Uber and Lyft did just that, skirting the existent rules that everyday taxi and cab services have had to endure).

So, by putting into your back-pocket the regulatory battle cry and peddling it quietly from time-to-time, the stage is being set to invoke the boogieman, when needed, if needed.

If that day arrives, you can pull the ripcord, blossoming the regulatory outrage parachute, along with triggering rabid fans to bellow “down with the man,” buying needed breathing space and creating a saving grace smokescreen while hiding behind the stirred up outrage.

Of course, it might be that the scapegoat isn’t otherwise needed and so it might never be invoked.

Or, the scapegoat might be needed, and just like a “Break Glass” fire alarm, at the right time and right place, the regulatory shaming can begin.

There is the other side of that coin too.

It might genuinely be the case that regulatory aspects might trip things up, in which case, the whole subtle theme is still a worthy undercurrent to keep warm and ready for use.

Here’s part of the rub on that:

·        What is it that Tesla and Musk specifically believe will be a regulatory barrier or hurdle for their FSD or feature complete or whatever “it is” capabilities?

There doesn’t seem to be any specifics yet stated.

Logically, consider this rub too:

·        If they are able to foresee that there are regulatory issues, what are they doing right now to anticipate those facets?

In other words, it doesn’t seem businesswise prudent that if you knew of regulatory qualms that you wouldn’t be readying for them, either by preparing your tech to cope accordingly or somehow be designed to achieve the regulatory requirements or by working hand-in-hand with the regulators to see if there are ways to adjust or amend those claimed concerns.

And as a rub chaser:

·        Why not layout directly for all to see what those gaps are between what the regulations require and what the anticipated tech will deliver?

Seems like it would be pragmatic and an expedient way to head-off a pending difficulty or delay by being overt and proactive, rather than perhaps waiting until things are “readied” and then suddenly proclaiming, oops, can’t go ahead due to a regulatory mandate.

Indeed, here’s what Musk said in July of 2017: “AI is a rare case where we need to be proactive about regulation instead of reactive. Because I think by the time we are reactive in AI regulation, it’s too late.”

Sure, that does make a lot of sense.

This also raises the specter that regulations seem to nearly always get tainted as bad, but it would appear that Musk is actually noting that regulations might very well be warranted, at least with regard to AI-based systems (which would include self-driving cars, by the way).

Perhaps there is a sound basis for needed regulatory approval that Musk’s recent tweet suggests will either be a complication or worse implies will be an impediment as an undue burden.

This brings us further to Musk’s own words on the topic of needing AI-related regulations. In a tweet on February 17, 2020, Musk indicated this: “All orgs developing advanced AI should be regulated, including Tesla.”

If that tweet is taken at face value, it would seem that rather than possibly being concerned about regulatory approval for the Tesla capabilities, instead, it is essentially on the wish list of something that needs to be done and rightfully should be done.

Now, you can certainly still argue about whether the regulations themselves are on-target or not, but this is an argument that ought to already be taking place and especially in a public manner, due to the life-or-death matters involving self-driving cars, both semi-autonomous and fully autonomous.

There are numerous efforts underway right now about the regulatory aspects associated with self-driving cars, including at the federal level, the states, the municipalities, and also abundant industry bodies that are furthering standards that will inevitably be wrapped into some form of regulations.

That being the case, what beef does Tesla or Musk have, which would be handy to know now, and be able to therefore either seek a shaping or reshaping of those efforts.

Is it something technical?

Or, it is that they believe it will take too much time to undertake, in which case, perhaps propose how the process ought to be streamlined, and yet hopefully still retain the needed safety and care expected by the public.

Conclusion

Supporters of Tesla and Musk would likely argue that the regulatory approval aspects are something that ought to not get in the way of achieving Tesla’s self-driving ambitions.

Okay, if that’s the case, it would seem helpful if a fully delineated list of either unnecessary regulations were identified, or if the regulations were perhaps overly bloated or superfluous and thus going to block or impede progress, explain what that is.

In July of 2017, Musk said this: “I have exposure to the very cutting-edge AI, and I think people should be really concerned about it.” 

Furthermore, his remarks of July 2017 included this: “I keep sounding the alarm bell, but until people see robots going down the street killing people, they don’t know how to react, because it seems so ethereal.”

Parlaying off his stated qualms, there some outspoken critics that worry we are heading toward self-driving cars that are going to be going down the streets and highways, potentially getting into car crashes, killing people, and thus the eerie predictive nature of Musk’s own words are a foretelling of such potential.

It could be that well-crafted regulations and the enforcement of those regulations could aid in allying or to some degree mitigating Musk’s rightfully sounded alarm bell, but you can’t in the same breath be alluding to regulations as a seeming party crusher that is going to undermine matters, at least not if you aren’t stating directly how that seems to be the case and taking proactive action accordingly.

I’m not making an argument per se here about the nature or need of regulations (that’s an ongoing debate overall), and merely pointing out that regulations are a consideration for self-driving cars, for society, for our well-being, etc.

In the case of AI, some believe that we haven’t sufficiently adjusted existing laws to enable the advances that AI is bringing to our everyday existence, while others are at times claiming that existing laws are going to stifle the adoption of AI (for more on these meaty matters, see my coverage of FutureLaw 2020 at this link here).

Whichever camp you fall into, time to get into the game and start participating in the AI and laws discussions, doing so now, and aid in guiding the future of AI in our society.

There are lots of questions as yet unanswered, including the ones herein about any real or imagined hobgoblins.

Speak Your Mind

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Get in Touch

350FansLike
100FollowersFollow
281FollowersFollow
150FollowersFollow

Recommend for You

Oh hi there 👋
It’s nice to meet you.

Subscribe and receive our weekly newsletter packed with awesome articles that really matters to you!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

You might also like

Europe on high alert as coronavirus cases rise and...

Tourists wearing a surgical face mask walk by the Trevi fountain in downtown Rome...

US FDA Rejects BioMarin Hemophilia A Gene Therapy, Shares...

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc’s gene therapy for bleeding...