TL;DR
A Reuters investigation found 7 of 9 Tesla data labelers wouldn’t ride in FSD. They routinely saw the system speeding and failing on camera.
Reuters interviewed nine former Tesla data labelers and a former self-driving engineer about their views on Tesla’s Full Self-Driving mode. Seven of the nine data specialists said they would not ride in a Tesla operating on FSD. One said they would not ride in a Tesla robotaxi “if you f**king paid me.”
“We have all seen it fail,” one insider told Reuters. The former self-driving engineer concurred: “Definitely don’t trust Elon on this.” They were referencing Musk’s declaration that Tesla’s vehicles are ready for “safe unsupervised” rides.
The data labelers’ job was to comb through hours of FSD footage and train the vehicle’s software to avoid past mistakes. They had direct access to terabytes of proprietary driving data. At least five told Reuters they routinely saw clips of Teslas driving above the speed limit while operating on FSD.
The speeding issue was treated as a low priority by engineers and managers. Edge-case problems, like unusual road configurations or rare lighting conditions, received more attention. Routine speeding, which affects every drive and every road, was deprioritised.
The 💜 of EU tech
The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!
The investigation comes as Tesla has expanded FSD availability to new markets. Tesla confirmed FSD availability in China last week, though it remains unclear whether mainstream consumers can yet activate the system. The FSD (Supervised) system is classified as Level 2, requiring constant driver attention. A fully autonomous unsupervised version is being trialled only on a fleet of robotaxis in Austin, Texas.
Recent months have produced a series of FSD-related incidents. Teslas operating on FSD have driven into lakes, off bridges, and into the path of oncoming trains. These are the incidents that reached media coverage. The data labelers’ testimony suggests the internal footage contains a far larger catalogue of failures.
The gap between Musk’s claims and the system’s performance has been a persistent issue. Musk has promised fully autonomous driving repeatedly since 2016. Each deadline has passed without delivery. The company’s robotaxi service in Austin operates in a geofenced area with safety drivers available remotely.
Waymo’s flood-related shutdowns this month demonstrated that even the most advanced autonomous driving systems have failure modes in routine conditions. Tesla’s approach differs fundamentally from Waymo’s: camera-only perception versus multi-sensor fusion, and a consumer vehicle repurposed for autonomy versus a purpose-built robotaxi.
The data labeler testimony is significant because these workers are the closest to the raw performance data. They do not see marketing materials or earnings call projections. They see hours of video showing exactly how the software behaves on public roads. Seven of nine would not ride in the product they helped build.
Tesla did not respond to Reuters’ request for comment. The company has previously said that FSD (Supervised) requires active driver supervision and that its safety statistics show the system performs better than human drivers on a per-mile basis. The former engineer Reuters interviewed disputed those statistics.
The investigation raises a question that Tesla’s regulatory filings and marketing do not address: if the people who train the AI do not trust it, why should the people who ride in it?
