“To be clear, there’s another word I’d use to describe a “release candidate” — a beta, much like that of Tesla’s unsafe and unreliable Full Self-Driving Beta software, which currently appears to have a “phantom braking problem.””
Our reading:
Tesla's Full Self-Driving Beta software is unsafe and unreliable and appears to currently have a phantom braking problem.
Assessment: Can’t be checked
What happened
Not graded on evidence
Outcome: Can’t be checked
An opinion, a recommendation, or too vague to test. Listed, not scored.
Judged on a plain reading. They named no measure, so we used the reading a typical informed reader would take. It is spelled out under “How we judged it”.
Evidence up to . Checked .
Why
The submitted claim combines the firm description 'unsafe and unreliable' with the tentative phrase 'appears to' about phantom braking. The rules exclude hedged claims. Scoring the combined proposition would either strengthen that allegation or substitute a claim about credible reports. Earlier records document FSD Beta safety concerns, but Tesla also documented a remedy before July. These records provide context, not a verdict on the whole sentence. This exclusion does not imply that the firm safety and reliability assertion is untestable.
Caveats
- No separate verdict is assigned to the unhedged safety and reliability assertion.
- Earlier recalls and complaints cannot automatically establish the condition of July software.
Evidence (3 items)
Claims like this aren’t scored, so there is no evidence to show.
How we judged it
- Kind of claim
- Observation
- Deadline
- None given. We don’t add one.
Where we had to interpret
- The sentence combines a firm safety and reliability assertion with a tentative allegation about phantom braking. The hedge applies to the braking allegation, not to the preceding adjectives.
- The ordinary reading of 'unsafe and unreliable' is that the software has material safety and driving-performance problems. It does not mean every use causes harm or assert a particular comparative crash rate.
- I interpret 'currently' as July 2023 through the July 27 publication date. This is an ongoing software condition, without a natural quarterly reporting period.
- Under the supplied exclusion of hedged claims, the combined proposition cannot receive a single factual grade as submitted. Replacing 'appears to' with either 'has' or 'has credible reports of' would change the speaker's commitment.
We don’t grade claims like this. We only check the quote and who said it.
What would settle it
Separately submit the unhedged safety and reliability assertion for assessment against July 2023 evidence. Additional evidence cannot remove the hedge from the braking allegation.
Full record
Source and dates
Where's Your Ed At, The Rot King, paragraph 14.
- Said
- We read the source
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence up to
- Checked
We read this wording on 2026-10-28. The post may have been edited after 2023-07-27.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the posts we read.
: Where's Your Ed At, The Rot King
To be clear, there’s another word I’d use to describe a “release candidate” — a beta, much like that of Tesla’s unsafe and unreliable Full Self-Driving Beta software, which currently appears to have a “phantom braking problem.”
- Where
- paragraph 14
- Published
- 2023-07-27
- We read it
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Versions
- Current: Can’t be checked. Evidence up to 2026-10-28.
What happened to this record
PublishedBy us
Published after both AI reviews and the final check passed.
Held backBy us
A reviewer said our test wasn’t fair to what was actually said.