Thanks jmiskovic, I stand corrected:

> openpilot is developed in good faith to be compliant with FMVSS requirements and to follow industry standards of safety for Level 2 Driver Assistance Systems. In particular, we observe ISO26262 guidelines, including those from pertinent documents released by NHTSA. In addition, we impose strict coding guidelines (like MISRA C : 2012) on parts of openpilot that are safety relevant. We also perform software-in-the-loop, hardware-in-the-loop and in-vehicle tests before each software release. [0]

I would be quite curious to see how they perform HIL tests and in-vehicle tests and if those results are also public?

[0] https://github.com/commaai/openpilot/blob/master/SAFETY.md

Edit: I cannot edit or remove the grandparent comment but I leave here this correction

Yes, but what does "observes" ISO26262 mean? The words I would want to hear before plugging this into my car are, "meets", "complies with with", or "certified to ISO26262."

They run Python codes on the phone, and let a separate microcontroller do car interfacing, in which they do their best to gatekeep the ML output. That “critical” uC part is self certified by them on best effort basis.

And of course that uC unit comes in a 3D printed enclosure so yeah

There is ofcourse no way they are ISO26262 compliant since they are not even trying to make it road legal.

ISO26262 compliance is really heavy and requires enormous amount of documentation and requirements tracking.

They plan on open sourcing their ISO26262 documentation when Openpilot 1.0 is released. They were hiring (or already did? don't know) someone to help them write it up for release.