[HN Gopher] Tesla Admits Current 'Full Self-Driving Beta' Will A...
___________________________________________________________________
Tesla Admits Current 'Full Self-Driving Beta' Will Always Be Level
2
Author : samizdis
Score : 132 points
Date : 2021-03-08 20:10 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thedrive.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thedrive.com)
| jack_riminton wrote:
| Beta = hands-on until it becomes not Beta
|
| They're clearly trying to get as far as possible (data flywheel)
| until they absolutely have to get authorisation from the
| regulators.
|
| This is just lawyers doing lawyer stuff. Of course Tesla are
| aiming for complete automation.
| theluketaylor wrote:
| I have a 2021 model 3 and autopilot is a really bad driver.
| Teenager learning to drive with poor habits bad.
|
| I went for a 500km+ drive on Sunday to visit new supercharger
| locations (it's been a long pandemic and I'm pretty bored). It
| was mostly rural highways without lane separation or limited
| access. These are some of the most dangerous roads to drive on
| since there is direct oncoming and cross traffic. Speed limits
| are 80 km/hr, but the prevailing traffic flows at just under 100
| km/hr, so closing speeds are around 200 km/hr.
|
| I hardly ever turn on autopilot since it's just bad at driving,
| but there were long stretches of completely straight roads with
| multiple minutes passing between oncoming vehicles. Even in that
| specific circumstances Autopilot made some truly weak decisions
| about its basic driving style.
|
| It attached to the centreline between lanes which limited the gap
| with oncoming traffic. When I drive myself in the same
| circumstances I attach to the outside of the lane to maximize the
| space I can give oncoming cars. With the amount of room autopilot
| was giving even a small twitch or moment of distraction would be
| enough for disaster. If the event was timed poorly enough even a
| computer system would have no chance to react in time to
| physically manoeuvre the car out of the way.
|
| Autopilot makes no accommodation for blind spots. When traffic is
| flowing at full speed on limited access or other multiple lane
| highways I adjust my relative position with other vehicles to
| ensure I'm never spending long periods of time in another
| driver's blind spot. If we're travelling the same speed I create
| a gap to ensure a quick lane change won't result in contact.
| Autopilot will continue along completely oblivious and no taking
| good defensive driving precautions.
|
| There is a youtube channel featuring collision footage from Tesla
| onboard cameras. Nearly every collision when autopilot is engaged
| is a situation that never would have occurred in the hands of a
| skilled driver who anticipates issues and prevents dangerous
| situations from every occurring. Without knowing the specific
| collision that's about to happen in the video in most cases I can
| see a dangerous situation starting to develop I would have
| reacted to seconds before the collision actually occurs.
| w0m wrote:
| > Without knowing the specific collision that's about to happen
| in the video in most cases I can see a dangerous situation
| starting to develop I would have reacted to seconds before the
| collision actually occurs.
|
| But you tend to know a collision is coming. Most accidents are
| due to people being comfortable and not being as alert as they
| should be; your example is the opposite.
|
| AP is currently ~good on highway (probably safer than I am in
| good weather), but Meh elsewise. Hopefully it continues to
| improve; but it will be awhile still i think; and iffy to ever
| get there on our current Teslas.
| theluketaylor wrote:
| fair enough on the anticipation, but when I have let
| autopilot take over it has often been only seconds before I'm
| already uncomfortable with the decisions it's making and
| spotting the really rookie driving mistakes it makes.
|
| autopilot creates danger where none needed to exist by not
| using the full width of the lane and failing to create space
| through relative small speed adjustments. The cues it gives
| off while driving are some of the exact things I watch for
| when trying to identify beginning drivers so I can give them
| even more space.
|
| I certainly would not describe autopilot as 'good' on
| highways. I'd barely call it adequate.
| rainyMammoth wrote:
| That is my conclusion as well. I have tried Autopilot and it's
| basically as good and useful as any modern lane steering and
| cruise control system out there.
| tesla_fan_88 wrote:
| We all have reasons to be cynical towards Elon, but what yo don't
| realize is I'm sending this comment over a Starlink connection
| that has made me rethink what my future could be. Living in a
| rural area, I was always under the impression that I'd need to
| move to the city and get a fiber connection eventually. With
| Starlink, that's not a concern any longer. My latency is rock-
| solid at <50ms and download speeds are more than capable as well.
|
| Obviously Elon isn't entirely responsible for it, but I'm
| constantly impressed by his initiative in tech world. If Starlink
| weren't available, I'd be waiting 3+ years for Apple to build
| some sort of similar service.
| gzu wrote:
| @plainsite doing the real dirty work here
| jeffbee wrote:
| The incredible thing about the whole "FSD Beta" phenomenon is how
| many members of the public are willfully participating in the
| pump-and-dump. I just can't figure out if they are hypnotized,
| brainwashed, or just never had any critical thinking skills to
| begin with.
|
| Take for example this well-known youtuber, AI DRIVR. This guy
| drives around in his Tesla talking about how amazing and mind-
| blowing it is, but if you mute him and just watch the video with
| a critical eye you can see that the software simply does not
| work. It should be outlawed immediately before it kills someone.
| He recently rampaged through my town of Berkeley, California,
| breaking five laws per minute (aside from the fact that he has
| the speed controls set 5 MPH above the limit at all times).
|
| Here's his car running a stop sign:
| https://youtu.be/SNT5MzjAAms?t=219
|
| Here it runs a red light, which the narrator takes pains to
| explain away. https://youtu.be/SNT5MzjAAms?t=238
|
| Here it turns right from the center lane:
| https://youtu.be/SNT5MzjAAms?t=523
|
| Here it violates the right-of-way of a car that it incorrectly
| classified as parked. https://youtu.be/SNT5MzjAAms?t=762
|
| At numerous points in the video, it signals for a right turn
| while going straight. https://youtu.be/SNT5MzjAAms?t=806
|
| Here it signals left while going straight:
| https://youtu.be/SNT5MzjAAms?t=898
|
| Absolutely unacceptable. The government should act against this
| junk.
| snypher wrote:
| His explanation for the red light is "the front wheels were in
| the intersection before it turned red". I'm pretty sure it
| could have stopped on the amber, as required.
| reissbaker wrote:
| This is a gotcha headline that is contradicted by one of the
| quotes from Tesla they list in their own article:
|
| _Please note that Tesla's development of true autonomous
| features (SAE Levels 3+) will follow our iterative process
| (development, validation, early release, etc.) and any such
| features will not be released to the general public until we have
| fully validated them and received any required regulatory permits
| or approvals._
|
| TL;DR: Tesla does not want their upcoming release of FSD Beta to
| be considered to be above Level 2, and their lawyers are
| submitting documents to California saying that it shouldn't be
| considered above Level 2 and thus they shouldn't have to apply
| for special permits in California to release it. They continue to
| work on autonomous driving features.
| goatherders wrote:
| He's such a good marketer. There is a case to be made that he's
| participating (often) in fraud to pump up the stock price, but
| people keep buying it so...whatever.
| goatherders wrote:
| 3 downvotes? LOL, don't ever change HN.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Nevermind the pump and dump, which has been right out in the
| open for years. What about selling people a $10000 option that
| doesn't work?
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Honda has just unveiled their first certified level 3 car,
| beating Tesla to it.
| fastball wrote:
| Level 2 vs 3 is more a regulatory distinction than a
| technological one.
|
| Teslas have a summon feature which is kinda level 4.
|
| In summary: the driving autonomy level system kinda sucks.
| perardi wrote:
| Musk's reality distortion field must visibly bend light. He
| manages to accomplish so much, but also manages to peddle a lot
| of absolute monorail-level bullshit.
|
| https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a35350331/checking-in-on-a...
|
| _(Still hoping for that super-tunnel to take me to O'Hare once
| flying is back up to full speed.)_
| api wrote:
| It's because of the former that he is able to command the
| latter.
|
| Musk isn't super-human. He's a good engineer with great
| intuition for how to solve hard problems and a good "first
| principles" approach. He also has a great work ethic. There are
| tons of Elon Musks around.
|
| What's rare is people as visionary and competent as him who are
| also rich and well-connected. Having someone who actually knows
| something in a position to make decisions about the allocation
| of large amounts of capitol yields results so amazing that they
| appear super-human, which buys him a hell of a reality
| distortion field and a lot of slack for being eccentric.
|
| Musk got rich more or less by accident. The systems that
| advance people to those heights select for competence in the
| areas of social and financial advancement, not practical
| engineering or creativity, hence his rarity.
|
| Of course today it's probably better than it ever has been in
| all of history. Historically the way to wealth and power was to
| brainwash a large number of people into killing (and risking
| their lives) for you and then sitting back and reaping the
| reward. That's still a thing, but at least now there are other
| routes.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| https://youtu.be/5uqpA3beAhc
|
| I used to think like you, then I see these driverless
| demonstrations and negotiated left turns with zero user
| interaction.
|
| I have this feeling that we will be surprised like we were when
| AlphaGO won...
| arithmomachist wrote:
| Being able to steer the car effectively is only one part of
| an enormously complex engineering problem. A fully autonomous
| vehicle would need to:
|
| 1. Be robust to bad visibility, not an easy task in computer
| vision.
|
| 2. Have access to extremely detailed maps that include things
| like driveways and parking lots. These maps would need to be
| continuously updated. The labor required to make and maintain
| such maps will limit how many places cars can be fully
| autonomous.
|
| 3. Understand the etiquette of the road. For example, a
| person seeing a car stop in the street near a parking spot
| would assume the car is about to parallel park and give it
| room to pull off the maneuver. An autonomous vehicle wouldn't
| give it so much room, because it can't reason about context
| in that way.
|
| 4. Negotiate ambiguous situations requiring interaction with
| other drivers. There are frequently situations where it's not
| clear who has the right of way from the rules of the road.
| People resolve these by gesturing with their hands and with
| their cars. A fully autonomous vehicle would need to
| understand these signals.
| bob33212 wrote:
| He has been pretty honest that predicting the maximum of a
| derivative of an S-curve is very hard.
| dheera wrote:
| Personally I think he understands everything. The problem is
| the stock market and SEC which set up laws that encourage and
| incentivize bullshitting. Everything from letting a free market
| full of idiots to determine prices, to quarterly earnings
| reports, is set up to encourage every form of BS.
|
| If we want to optimize for reducing bullshit, the stock market
| and rules around it need to be restructured.
| fastball wrote:
| That article has very TSLAQ-type vibes, and in fact links to
| two TSLAQ sites at the bottom.
|
| None of which are honest about how things have progressed.
| perardi wrote:
| I...don't even know what TSLAQ is, but, where's that
| Hyperloop, battery swapping, and robotaxi?
| fastball wrote:
| TSLAQ is a coordinated effort by TSLA short-sellers to
| generate as much bad press about Tesla as possible in order
| to tank the price and make money on their short positions.
|
| Ensuring said bad press is _accurate /fair_ is certainly
| not the primary goal.
|
| Disclaimer: I don't own any TSLA stock.
| crazypython wrote:
| > TSLAQ is a loose, international[1] collective of largely
| anonymous short-sellers,[2] skeptics, and researchers who
| openly criticize Tesla, Inc. and its CEO, Elon Musk.[3] The
| group primarily organizes on Twitter, often using the
| $TSLAQ cashtag,[4] and Reddit[5] to coordinate efforts and
| share news, opinions, and analysis about the company and
| its stock.
|
| > Tesla Ticker Symbol + "Q" which is the NASDAQ notation
| for bankruptcy
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSLAQ
| rainyMammoth wrote:
| Ah yes because any voiced criticism of Tesla must be rooted
| into big short money.
| amelius wrote:
| Musk is just a brand created by investors to secure their
| investments.
| Hypocritelefty wrote:
| Tesla shills here are good at turning fraud in to saving the
| planet.
| Hypocritelefty wrote:
| Tesla shills lol
| cogman10 wrote:
| Not really surprising if you've been following the beta progress.
| I doubt Tesla will move past level 2 until they are at a point
| where Level 4 or 5 is possible.
|
| With that said, I have real doubts that they can get their with
| the current camera suite. IMO, they don't have enough redundancy.
| Further, I think elon's anti-lidar position is a mistake. Even if
| they can make it without lidar, I think it will set them behind
| the rest of the industry.
|
| Likely, we will see something where they collect enough training
| data to hit level 4 + training suite and eventually they'll
| release cars with new sensor suites. Once that happens, my bet is
| that's when they'll actually release level 4 capabilities. I
| highly doubt any current car will ever allow hands off driving.
| perardi wrote:
| Something I've been curious about with computer-vision-only
| versus LIDAR: snow.
|
| Now, I am naive about the real intricacies of computer vision.
| But won't snow be quite nasty for camera-only systems? It's
| almost the physical definition of noise, as it's random and
| reflective. Is there any research or experience with computer
| vision and dealing with a snowstorm? Because even human drivers
| aren't great in that kind of low-vision scenario.
|
| _(Why yes, I did grow up in the Midwest.)_
| artursapek wrote:
| I think the argument is that if a human with two eyeballs can
| do it, a computer with a bunch of cameras should be able to
| as well. I can drive in the snow.
| alacombe wrote:
| > I can drive in the snow
|
| More often than not, snow driving is _CHALLENGING_. And it
| 's not for a lack of experience, as I'm doing multiple
| roadtrips through the BC Coquihalla Highway. More often
| than now, it's more of a matter of best attempt at driving
| in the path made by other car disregarding lines on the
| road than driving by the book. The utter HELL being driving
| at night with a blizzard, _this_ is a level-up experience
| for sure.
| perardi wrote:
| That's...a supposition more than an argument.
| fastball wrote:
| How is that not an argument?
|
| A human can drive in the snow, and has a sensing package
| which effectively consists of two cameras.
|
| The hard part (when you only have two cameras) is that
| the _processor_ needs to be exceedingly sophisticated,
| e.g. a human brain.
|
| People like Waymo have decided the best way to decrease
| the brain requirement is to add more sophisticated
| sensing that humans are fundamentally incapable of.
|
| Tesla's strategy is more to just build a better digital
| driving brain with machine learning + lots of miles,
| because arguably all sensing mechanisms have their
| shortcomings. That being said, they still have a lot more
| than two cameras in their FSD package - just not LIDAR.
| They still have radar and other things as well.
|
| Only time will tell which approach is better. Probably in
| the end the best approach will be to combine the two: a
| brain that is sophisticated enough it can drive with just
| cameras, but you throw LIDAR and such in their too to go
| the extra mile.
| Skunkleton wrote:
| > A human can drive in the snow, and has a sensing
| package which effectively consists of two cameras.
|
| Two cameras, and a huge amount of mostly not understood
| wetware interpreting their signals. Our current
| approaches to ML may be a local maxima. The true path to
| AGI be somewhere as yet undiscovered. Lidar certainly
| seems like a good tool to use given our current ML
| capabilities.
| hilbertseries wrote:
| This is a terrible argument. You're basically saying that
| computers can do anything humans can, which so far has not
| been the case.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Not "anything". Just taking noisy camera data and turning
| it into a de-noised picture.
| jsight wrote:
| Saying that computer vision can view the world with snow
| present is hardly the same as claiming that computers can
| do literally anything a human can.
|
| On the contrary, having computer vision capable of
| handling snow is a necessary precondition for self-
| driving, regardless of what other sensors are present.
| grumple wrote:
| Humans certainly do drive in the snow, but not well. I've
| driven without being able to see the road (very slowly).
| This is not a safe situation. This is actually a case where
| I think computers (with LIDAR or other advanced sensors)
| will be able to outperform humans and it won't be close. I
| agree with the posters that say the anti-LIDAR stance is
| not going to work out in the long run.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Musk is not only anti-LIDAR, he's anti-HD mapping.
| Imagine if you had a centimeter-accurate map overlaid on
| your windscreen. You'd probably be able to operate the
| vehicle right up to the limits of the conditions. It
| definitely won't be close in many situations.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| How fast do humans drive in heavy snow? I think most people
| drive extremely slowly to allow themselves to filter out the
| snow noise by taking in more frames, this will be possible
| with AI too.
|
| It's worth noting there are many accidents caused by people
| driving in snow and that AI could be hugely safer at some
| point.
|
| And also having to drive manually when it is snowing is
| probably fine for v1.
|
| I would worry more about bicycles, they can be extremely
| tricky if the rider doesn't understand how to explain their
| presence on the road to drivers.
| mjevans wrote:
| I drive slower in the snow because of limited traction and
| the dangers of other drivers around me.
|
| If I had some button that made spikes or another traction
| method pop out of my tires and gave me great grip I
| probably would drive full speed in the snow; because the
| main issue would have been solved.
| jsight wrote:
| Its a hard problem, but LIDAR has similar issues. Snow can
| cause noise for other sensors as well. In each case it seems
| like these issues are not insurmountable.
|
| I don't expect that any self-driving systems will start out
| with handling all weather conditions. Even in the long term
| they may handle fewer conditions than humans.
| NickM wrote:
| Article is misleading. Tesla sent a letter to the CA DMV
| requesting approval for a feature which they referred to as "City
| Streets" which they say is level 2, and will continue to be level
| 2 as it is developed. They specifically say _in this very
| document_ that they _will_ develop higher levels of autonomy in
| the future, so it 's pretty clear that the "final release of City
| Streets will continue to be level 2" quote is just referring to
| the particular subset of functionality that they're seeking
| approval for.
|
| From the very same letter, there is also this quote:
|
| _Please note that Tesla's development of true autonomous
| features (SAE Levels 3+) will follow our iterative process
| (development, validation, early release, etc.) and any such
| features will not be released to the general public until we have
| fully validated them and received any required regulatory permits
| or approvals._
| ra7 wrote:
| "City Streets" is part of "Full Self Driving" $10,000 package
| though. They are calling it "Full Self Driving", but a subset
| of functionality will always be level 2? And the FSD Beta is
| also level 2 because it only works on city streets? That seems
| clearly misleading.
|
| What's next? "Really, truly full self driving" that's actually
| level 3+?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > They are calling it "Full Self Driving", but a subset of
| functionality will always be level 2?
|
| Well, yes? That's how subsets work.
|
| Thought experiment, pretend "City Streets" was called "Level
| 2 Mode". Would you be upset that "Level 2 Mode" will always
| be level 2? Or that "Level 2 Mode" is a subset of "Full Self
| Driving"?
| Traster wrote:
| I'd be upset that level 2 mode was released 3 years after
| they promised level 5 would be ready.
| ra7 wrote:
| > Thought experiment, pretend "City Streets" was called
| "Level 2 Mode".
|
| That would be an accurate name for "city streets". Except
| currently, it's part of an umbrella feature called "full
| self driving" that's supposedly going to be "level 5" soon.
| This is it with most things with FSD. Qualifiers after
| qualifiers for a clearly misleading name.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _" Really, truly full self driving" that's actually level
| 3+?_
|
| Prediction:
|
| * Ridiculous Self Driving
|
| * Ludicrous(+) Self Driving
|
| * Plaid Self Driving
| grumple wrote:
| These are incremental releases of gradually improving
| functionality. Their plan is to get to level 3+.
|
| People who buy it know what they are getting, and if they
| don't, it's entirely willful ignorance. I don't even own a
| Tesla yet I've read plenty about the actual capabilities and
| the fact that these cars can't truly drive themselves.
| dheera wrote:
| I always assumed by "full" they meant that it doesn't just do
| autopilot on highways, but is capable of handling local
| roads, traffic lights, stop signs, as well. Basically it can
| drive from local address A to local address B assuming good
| conditions.
|
| I'm a robotics person though so it was always pretty clear to
| me that I couldn't possibly think of being able to deploy an
| L4 system with their set of sensors.
| ra7 wrote:
| When you call it "full" and "self driving", I don't know
| how many qualifiers you can attach to it. I know it's not
| anywhere close to driving by itself, but between the naming
| and Elon Musk constantly talking about how level 5 (I mean,
| level 5 is the ultimate form of autonomous driving) is just
| around the corner, it's pretty easy to see that as
| misleading customers. All while they don't even bother to
| get a driverless testing permit from CA DMV.
| dheera wrote:
| Yeah, of course. But it was always clear to me.
|
| The problem is (a) the stock market is full of idiots
| that won't listen to real engineers like us, and listen
| to some bullshitty CEOs and analysts instead (b) the SEC
| and stock market is perfectly optimized and incentivized
| to maximize the amount of marketing bullshit coming out
| of company PR.
|
| If people wanted more honestly worded things out of
| companies, we need to stop nailing companies every time
| they don't "beat" earnings estimates every quarter, and
| begin to understand how real science and real
| technological advancement happens.
|
| The way NASA is funded, for example, is the exact
| opposite, and minimizes bullshit, but NASA and Tesla
| share a lot in common in terms of what they're trying to
| accomplish for humanity.
|
| EDIT: Okay maybe NASA wasn't a good example. But in any
| case, the current structure of public companies and
| letting a bunch of gullible <strike>sheep</strike>
| average citizens collectively determine the value of a
| company based on what a bunch of <strike>clowns</strike>
| non-engineers in suits at Wall Street try to make of a
| highly technical venture isn't a system optimized for
| minimizing bullshit, it's quite the opposite.
| nickik wrote:
| > The problem is (a) the stock market is full of idiots
| that won't listen to real engineers like us
|
| So you are a real engineer and Musk is not?
|
| > begin to understand how real science and real
| technological advancement happens
|
| By pushing for it hard, investing your credibility and a
| lot of man power and resources into it? Like literally
| what Elon Musk does with all his projects.
|
| > The way NASA is funded, for example, is the exact
| opposite, and minimizes bullshit
|
| NASA claims nonsense literally all the time. The
| #JournyToMars under Obama for example.
| dheera wrote:
| > So you are a real engineer and Musk is not?
|
| Real engineers don't bullshit. Real engineers understand
| that there is a certain responsibility that comes with
| people trusting their lives to their engineering skills.
| Real engineers can give you confidences on everything in
| hard numbers with data. Real engineers can provide
| realistic estimates of timelines. Real engineers make
| mistakes sometimes, admit them candidly, and know
| perfectly well how to adjust those timelines based on
| past estimate errors and extrapolate adjusted project
| timeline estimates with basic math. Real engineers know
| the limits of systems and how to write spec sheets that
| describe them accurately. Real engineers don't always
| know the answer to every question, and know when to say
| "I don't know".
|
| It's managers, investors, analysts, and sometimes
| customers who don't want to listen to those
| extrapolations and estimates and uncertainty. And so many
| real engineers gradually become increasingly fake,
| because the other (corrupt) parts of the system spread
| their toxic thinking into the engineering.
|
| I have a lot of respect for Musk, who was a real
| engineer, probably REALLY wants to stay a real engineer,
| and is still mostly an engineer. But he is indeed forced
| to be a part-time <strike>bullshitter</strike> non-
| engineer by the system, which demands bullshit by its
| very incentive structure.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| For Musk his bullshitting is still nowhere close to the
| competitors, who said for a long time that they can
| manufacture millions of electric cars if they really want
| to.
|
| When I told my friend about self driving Tesla who's a
| BMW fan, he said that BMW will just sell self driving
| cars when it's ready.
|
| Really? Without gathering any data? I'd say BMW is the
| bigger bullshitter. Elon needs to update the computers
| maybe, but everything else in the cars is ready for self
| driving im the near future.
| rodgerd wrote:
| > But it was always clear to me.
|
| So when the CEO went on stage and said cars would be
| self-delivering via fully autonomous driving it was
| obvious to you that his statement was a lie?
| loganfrederick wrote:
| That is where there is a disconnect between the Tesla marketing
| language and technical language.
|
| They publicly advertise and collect cash for pre-sales of "Full
| Self Driving". Most Hacker News technologists would reserve a
| phrase that bold for Levels 4 and 5.
|
| But here they are in writing stating that they are currently
| only at Level 2.
|
| So a couple core questions around Tesla are:
|
| - Is it acceptable to take pre-orders from the average consumer
| for a feature that might be 10 years away?
|
| - Is it ethical to use exaggerated marketing speak for specific
| technical functions (to give a non-Tesla example, this is like
| when I see companies implementing rule-based decision trees or
| linear regression and calling their apps "Artificial
| Intelligence")?
| teleclimber wrote:
| It's not just technical and marketing, it's legal too. And
| this article references emails from tesla legal team. So
| legal is telling dmv that it's L2 so it doesn't have to get
| permits, but that doesn't mean the tech isn't destined to be
| L3 when it's fully developed and they are ready to submit
| themselves to regulatory scrutiny.
| ctvo wrote:
| Your theory here is they're purposefully downplaying their
| level of self-driving technology to avoid regulatory
| processes?
|
| Are they going to keep winking at customers and letting
| them think it's level 3 so they continue to take their
| hands off the steering wheel and do other things like
| countless Youtube videos already capture?
|
| It's a little disturbing how people will jump through so
| mental hoops to give Tesla the benefit of the doubt.
| oneplane wrote:
| This disconnect seems to be growing globally, be it
| marketing, technical or legal.
|
| It seems strange considering the wide availability of
| information and communication, but apparently there either is
| no feedback loop back to the people who write like that, or
| there is but it's mostly positive (be it more sales, less
| lawsuits or a greater following). At some point the meaning
| of those words will have hollowed out so much that we can't
| use them in normal conversation anymore.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| > this is like when I see companies implementing rule-based
| decision trees or linear regression and calling their apps
| "Artificial Intelligence"
|
| AI means so many things that it has become as meaningful as
| "magic". Some don't consider anything less than human-level
| an AI (this is also called AGI or strong AI). On the other
| hand enemy behavior in video games is commonly called "AI"
| even when it is as simple as pacman ghosts. In the same way
| that magic can literally mean "impossible" or be applied to
| card tricks accessible to 5 year olds.
| throwaway8581 wrote:
| "AI" is ambiguous but "Full Self Driving" has a pretty
| clear plain meaning. It means that the car is self-driving.
| Not partially self-driving, not mostly self-driving,
| _fully_ self-driving.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| > Tesla sent a letter to the CA DMV requesting approval
|
| Can you cite that? It directly contradicts the linked article
| which claims that the CA DMV contacted Tesla to clarify if
| Tesla were testing a vehicle without proper permit.
|
| If Tesla were seeking some kind of approval it makes their
| email very confusing as Tesla is insisting that they don't need
| additional permits/approval for the "City Streets" beta.
| choppaface wrote:
| Here's the letter:
| https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-
| te...
| Someone1234 wrote:
| That seems to confirm what the article said. The first
| email appears to be dated December 20, 2019 from the CA DMV
| to Tesla.
|
| Here's the original email sent to Tesla:
|
| > Subject: Announcement of Full Self Driving Feature.
|
| > Al we've seen press reports that Mr. Musk announced on
| Twitter that a "Tesla holiday software update has FSD sneak
| preview..." Many people generally translate "FSD" to be
| "full self-driving." Is Tesla releasing a full self-driving
| software update to any California Tesla owners? As you are
| aware, the deployment of autonomously driven vehicles on
| public roads in California requires a permit to deploy. At
| this time Tesla does not have a permit to deploy. Please
| provide an update on what this announcement for the
| deployment of the feature means in terms of autonomous
| operation on public roads in California?
|
| I don't see anywhere where Tesla are seeking approval,
| quite the opposite in fact. Tesla are saying they shouldn't
| be required to seek approval for "City Streets."
| choppaface wrote:
| Oh I see what you're saying. I believe they are "seeking
| approval" for City Streets ... as a Level 2 product.
| Likely some discrepancy between what Musk says and what
| the rest of the company does.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| They were already approved for Level 2 driving, the DMV
| is asking if City Streets is level 2 or per Tesla's own
| statements FSD which they were not permitted for testing.
|
| If "Tesla sent a letter to the CA DMV requesting
| approval" per the above comment, that would have meant
| Tesla were trying to get an FSD permit in CA (the
| opposite of what happened).
| sschueller wrote:
| Yeah, they just keep moving the carrot. By the time Tesla comes
| with FSD the current model lines will have reached their end of
| live and the $6k+ that people paid will be lost with the car.
| adrr wrote:
| An attorney general from a state will start to go after them
| if they don't come up FSD any time soon. My guess is the
| settlement will be that they can carry it forward to another
| Tesla. No of the features really work with the current FSD
| like smart summon. And there's probably tens of millions of
| money poured into a feature that doesn't limit up to
| expectations.
| rodgerd wrote:
| If they were performing as their CEO represented, the cars
| would be have driving themselves cross-country to delivery
| themselves to customers years ago. The time to have them up
| about lying what would be delivered and when was a looooong
| time ago.
| [deleted]
| jdxcode wrote:
| Yeah, the word "current" in the headline is doing some heavy
| lifting
| choppaface wrote:
| Cynical take: Tesla GC says "We completely understand and agree
| that we won't deploy any autonomous vehicle feature without a
| deployment permit" [
| https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-te...
| ]. Absolutely certain that Tesla won't take liability for city
| driving unless they absolutely must. Especially when so many
| Tesla drivers are so open to accepting the liability. If
| Tesla's competitors (e.g. Waymo etc) launch taxis, then Tesla
| might change course and do the same. But if Tesla doesn't have
| to do that, they're going to play a game with California where
| they get to argue over if their cars are level 2 or actually
| self-driving or whatever .... all the while Tesla users
| continue to assume liability and help train Tesla's
| software.... which is what Tesla really wants to continue as
| long as possible.
|
| These docs don't really shed light on Tesla's FSD plans so much
| as they illustrate the lengths to which Tesla will go to skirt
| regulation and liability. All the chatter and rumors about
| Tesla FSD just drive more attention and more potential users
| (trainers) into their pool.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| > they will develop higher levels of autonomy in the future
|
| Any bozo can make claims about the future.
|
| And you're a bozo for believing them. Do you believe everything
| you see in writing?
| smoldesu wrote:
| As cynical as I'd like to be towards Musk, I'm sending this
| comment over a Starlink connection that has made me rethink what
| my future could be. Living in a rural area, I was always under
| the impression that I'd need to move to the city and get a fiber
| connection eventually. With Starlink, that's no longer a concern.
| My latency is rock-solid at <50ms and download speeds are pretty
| capable as well.
|
| Obviously Elon isn't entirely responsible for it, but I'm
| constantly impressed by his initiative in tech world. If Starlink
| weren't available, I'd be waiting ~3 years for Amazon to build
| some sort of equivalent service.
| [deleted]
| stanford_labrat wrote:
| What're your download and upload speeds like?
| olyjohn wrote:
| Mine gets between 50-150mbps, sometimes 200-300 down. Up is
| between 20-40 from the tests I have done. Exactly as
| promised. My ping has gone from 40-60ms, and now is regularly
| around 20. This was just in a matter of months, and also me
| fucking with it for hours to try to find the best placement.
|
| I still have the occasional drop out... I can't make it
| through a video conference, or wifi call without a freeze up
| or audio drop. My Starlink app says "No obstructions" but
| also says "Obstructed for 4 minutes" on a regular basis. Many
| people seem to echo this. I'm not honestly sure if this is
| what to expect or not.
|
| I generally switch to my 1.5Mbps DSL line for phone calls and
| video conferences, which lowers the quality a ton, but at
| least I don't have to ask people to repeat the last 30
| seconds. Web surfing and downloading large files is blazing
| fast, and multiple people sharing the link seems to have no
| impact on the quality. Video streaming is fantastic. Another
| downside is that you're behind a CGNAT, so you'll never get a
| public IP address. Then their router puts you behind another
| NAT...
|
| StarLink is better than nothing for sure. But if Comcast
| didn't want $25,000 to run 550 feet of cable to my house, I
| would probably use that instead. I now have to call in an
| arborist or someone and top some trees that I am guessing are
| causing temporary obstructions, but I'm not really sure. I
| have a lot of trees on my property.
| tyingq wrote:
| Curious if what you're seeing for data speeds matches what they
| say on their FAQ page. Your latency is just past what they are
| promising, which I suppose is not terrible.
|
| _" users can expect to see data speeds vary from 50Mb/s to
| 150Mb/s and latency from 20ms to 40ms"_
|
| https://www.starlink.com/faq
| Kye wrote:
| They probably have a disclaimer somewhere in the contract
| saying the guarantee doesn't include latency added by the
| user's computer or network interface.
| tyingq wrote:
| Yeah, I'm not even sure if it means round trip latency.
| pomian wrote:
| Not to distract from original post, but! What download speeds
| are you getting? Do you suffer from throttling, for example of
| more people are connecting at the same time? Are there high and
| lows during the day? Our invitation arrived and we are tempted,
| but it seems very expensive.
| TinkersW wrote:
| You either have a fan named tesla_fan_88, who reposted the
| exact same comment, or are some kind of robo?
|
| tesla_fan_88 is brand new so I think maybe they stole your
| msg..
| sschueller wrote:
| Watching the stark difference between the rover on mars and
| Musks starship experiments I have little faith that starship
| will ever be realized. Elon over promises and under delivers
| almost every time.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| Having a strong reality distortion field is a necessary, but
| not sufficient condition to be a great innovator. You have to
| have some crazy ideas (landing a rocket!) and be able to
| convince people to invest with you or work for you. But no one
| bats 1000, and Musk's obsession with "autonomous" things,
| whether evil AI overlords or self-driving cars, tends to be his
| weak spot.
| johnfn wrote:
| I wouldn't trade one CEO working on actual important problems,
| like automobile deaths, global warming, space travel and
| universal internet access for a hundred CEOs working on the
| next social media startup or crypto idea. No matter how many
| stupid jokes he makes about "$420.69" on Twitter or whatever,
| he's had so much more quantifiable impact on the world.
| m463 wrote:
| I think the "$420.69" jokes are a sort of biomarker.
|
| Sort of like self-deprecating humor might not be the entire
| picture of mental health, but a sign that it is probably ok.
| sabhiram wrote:
| Hmm, he certainly is working on automobile deaths by
| releasing this nonsense, and giving unsuspecting masses
| confidence that they should not have.
| anonporridge wrote:
| I'm dubious that Starlink will really be all that great once it
| really scales up to tons of users. It's not surprising that
| it's great for a limited beta run.
|
| Driving on a highway is an amazing experience when it's mostly
| empty, and a nightmare in rush hour traffic.
|
| Has there been any good write up about how well Starlink (or
| any other satellite internet) could feasibly scale? Even if
| SpaceX can start dumping tons of satellites for dirt cheap with
| Starship's economy of scale, surely there's a limit where the
| risk of a Kessler syndrome event makes further expansion
| impractical.
| noodle wrote:
| Is any of this shocking or contrary to what's already been said
| in public? You could summarize the whole article like this:
|
| Tesla intends on building a great L2 system, releasing it
| publicly, and then moving on to L3 afterwards.
| kmonsen wrote:
| I don't think so, and I think level 3 is an error and should
| never be there. I think most will go from 2->4. L3 is just
| requiring human concentration that is impossible.
|
| That being said I agree with the spirit of your comment.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Level 3 requires that a human be available to take control in
| a certain amount of time.
|
| Whether that's a mistake depends on how long that amount of
| time it.
|
| For example, 10 seconds is perfectly safe. It's fine to
| completely ignore the road until you hear the beep, because
| 10 seconds is plenty of time to look around and figure out
| the situation and take control.
|
| I would argue that any system that requires constant human
| concentration is not actually level 3.
|
| Level 2 is the one that's dangerous by design.
|
| Edit: Though since the main difference between level 3 and
| level 4 is the ability to pull over, I wouldn't be surprised
| if level 3 gets quickly left behind or skipped entirely by
| many developers.
| babelfish wrote:
| As long as Musk continues to insist that Tesla doesn't need
| Lidar, their self-driving technology will always be a level lower
| than Waymo/Cruise/etc
| fastball wrote:
| Humans don't need LIDAR.
| emkoemko wrote:
| why would we want cars that drive like humans? i want a car
| the drives better then humans.
| fastball wrote:
| Yes, hence the sensing package that has more than two
| cameras.
|
| LIDAR is not mandatory for better driving than humans.
| rainyMammoth wrote:
| I cannot believe that smart people still repeat that
| argument.
|
| Until you have something like the human brain powering the
| car you cannot just use "two eyes"
| fastball wrote:
| Cannot believe you think Teslas only have two eyes.
| sschueller wrote:
| Humans make mistakes. FSD has to be better than humans.
| fastball wrote:
| Tesla has more than just two cameras in their FSD package.
| qeternity wrote:
| The whole point of autonomous driving is to surpass human
| levels of ability.
|
| Computers don't (yet) have the hardware nor software of a
| human brain. So they better come with extra tricks, like
| lidar.
| fundatus wrote:
| humans also have brains with an amount of computing power
| thats far greater than whats currently available, let alone
| in a tesla car.
| alacombe wrote:
| Not to mention that disregarding driving rules to get out
| of exceptional situation is acceptable to a human.
| Hypocritelefty wrote:
| Fraud Karen sells vapurware but Tesla shills in here are oh but
| he is saving the planet. The fuckers who fall for this shit
| deserve everybit of it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-08 23:01 UTC)