“Tesla would undergo financial damage”: Elon Musk refuses to reveal how many accidents really causes her autopilot

In the midst of a legal battle with The Washington PostTesla tries to block the disclosure of data related to its accidents in Autopilot or Full Self-Driving mode. Official reason: competition could benefit from it. But in hollow, the real concern seems much more embarrassing. And if transparency revealed above all an embarrassing truth about Elon Musk’s star technology ?

Tesla refuses to publish its Autopilot crash data: “Our competitors would benefit”

Tesla has never hidden her desire to keep control over communication around her assisted driving technologies. But this time, the argument is official. In a document transmitted to American justice, the brand of Elon Musk affirms:

The object of this complaint? The reports that Tesla transmits to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at each incident involving its autopilot or full self-driving systems (FSD). However, these reports are made almost illegible to the public: unlike other brands, Tesla regularly obtains the masking of large portions of text, thanks to a policy of confidentiality that the interpreter brand – let’s say – very largely.

But then, why this secret? Tesla explains it itself: these data would allow its rivals to learn too much. The company evokes the possibility that competition can “Evaluate the effectiveness of a given software or hardware version, calculate the number of accidents per system, and draw conclusions on the rate of progress of Tesla.”

It is Eddie Gates, head of reliability engineering at Tesla, who details the risks in a declaration attached to the file. According to him, these data would reveal much more than simple statistics: they would offer a direct view of the internal methods of Tesla, its rate of improvement, the way in which the company learns from its mistakes, and – even more worrying for the brand – the weak points of its software.

In other words, putting these reports in the public square is allowing analysts, lawyers or even competitors to reconstruct the puzzle of autopilot failures. Understanding how such a bug appeared at such a time, why such a patch caused more incidents than he avoided, or how Tesla reacts – or is slow to react – faced with certain critical problems.

And in a world where technological reputation is worth billions, this kind of detailed x-ray, however just, is simply unacceptable for the brand.

An image problem more than competition?

For The Washington Postthe maneuver is clear: Tesla does not want her promises of autonomy to be confronted with the facts. And the lawyers of the newspaper do not fail to underline an embarrassing detail: the drivers themselves know the software versions of their car. Why then talk about industrial secrets?

In reality, this case goes beyond the simple competitive field. Because if these data are made public, the media will be able to exploit it, families involved in accidents will be able to use them in court, and regulators could accelerate the rate. In the short term, this would not benefit Tesla or its stock market course.

But in the long term? To make public the details of autopilot accidents is perhaps also allowing the industry to do better. To understand what does not work. And to build safer systems.

A disturbing transparency

What this affair reveals, beyond legal semantics is the growing discomfort of a technological giant in the face of transparency. Tesla has built its reputation on rupture and audacity. But when it comes to showing where, how, and why his cars plant, it’s radio silence.

Autonomous driving is not an abstract promise: It is a technology being deployed (it has recently been tested in Paris)with very real implications for the safety of passengers … and pedestrians. And more than ever, a question arises: can we entrust our lives to algorithms when those who conceive them refuse to reveal their failures?

Want to save even more? Discover Our promo codes Selected for you.