If you still trust what Tesla says at this point, that's on you and your lack of pattern recognition. The usual advice is "don't buy a product based on promised future features", it could be amended for Tesla to say "don't buy a Tesla product based on promised current features".
The early (premature) use of "auto pilot" was bad-bad-bad.
I have never seen a Tesla advert where 'the driver gets in the car outside his home on City-A, presses a few buttons (a la Star Trek), falls asleep, the car starts driving to his/her office on City-B and honks to wake him/her up when it self-parks'
The comment after the article addresses the click-bait-y answer. I have the opinion that Tesla merely states that now this is not going to be a lvl3 self-driving car. Not that there will never be one.
For cars to be fully self-driving they need to talk to one-another. Not just sensors, sensing, but also have the (regularoty mandated) transponders so that each vehicle notifies other vehicles of its position.
I remember when I was learning programming (many many years ago) the exercise to write the code where an object of defined dimensions AxB needs to move from Start to End in a closed circuit, with scatered obstacles inbetween. For me this is how a car needs to do. Tell other cars 'hey these are my dimensions, my current location, my speed, my direction'. With the current computing power it would be easy for cars to avoid one-another (to be proven ofc).
Transponders is a vehicle to vehicle thing. Think of ships, airplanes. For pedestrians, dogs, cars, bicycles sensors, radars, cameras with AI can be used.
Though I wouldn't mind having such a transponder on my bicycle though if I had the option, or a "personal anonymised transponder". The problem with that implementation is that it's a nightmare to secure it. Blockchain may be used for that?
True, but this would require older cars to be retrofitted with transponders as well. That’s a monumental policy and implementation task given the number of cars on the road. And there will always be some laggards or those who disable or refuse to use them
Yes, and this is why this is not happening anytime soon, and thus (imho) lvl3 won't happen anytime soon.
What comes to mind is the 'Fifth Element' movie, scene when Bruce Willis tampers with the electronics of this cab when police is chasing him, and he's burning the little 'points' he has left.
Perhaps an early implementation could be limited in specific parts (specific highways, when you are 'woken up' before the entry & exit' and the car takes over for the long stretch. A combination of transponders, sensors, magnetic beacons/'drivers' on the asphalt, GPS, radio antennas (kinda like Android/Google maps use for location).
I tend to NOT buy something until proven to work. Musk is a media/marketing freak. He will tell whatever he has to, to serve his business interest. It's down to us to jump the bandwagon, OR wait calmly until the 'thing' is actually produced, tested, proven.
Elon Musk said that by 2020, there would be a million Tesla Robo-taxis on the roads. You can’t have a robo-taxi with level 2. I’m surprised he hasn’t been sued for fraud at this point.
I don't doubt we'll eventually get there, but I feel there are massively under-appreciated implementation problems with this approach.
Even assuming you have developed a standard protocol that can be used for cars to communicate with each other, how do you make sure they coordinate? How do you protect against malicious actors?
The programming analogy only works up to a point, the general problem would be coordinating multiple independent agents that you don't control, without knowing the code they're running.
Makes sense that the Beta still needs monitoring, now the question is how long will it stay in Beta? Will it be one of those pieces of software that is perpetually stuck in Beta?
Side point: why are regulators letting Tesla owners install beta self-driving software? And why are Tesla allowed to ship it to them? Seems stupidly risky.
Because a large portion of the population in the USA is philosophically opposed to any kind of government regulation or action. To them government is merely an obstacle to their personal wealth creation.
I'm philosophically opposed to government regulation in some instances. To me some regulation is an obstacle to making a well-informed choice. If my choice does not harm others then let me make the choice. I do not want someone making the choice for me because some people might make the wrong choice.
> Because a large portion of the population in the USA is philosophically opposed to any kind of government regulation or action.
My biggest issue is that it seems like regulations are being wielded as weapons against those that aren't in the good graces of the government for whatever reason. Companies have gotten crucified for false advertising claims and Tesla seems untouchable. People go to jail over securities fraud and Musk gets a slap on the wrist and is mouthing off on TV the next month. He's supposed to have a twitter sitter right now per his securities fraud agreement, would any reasonable lawyer have allowed him to tweet about gamestop or dogecoin?
>I’m not exactly sure why Tesla needs to call what English-speaking humans call “driving” the “dynamic driving task (DDT)”
My hunch is they do this to be more precise in terms of what the software actually controls.
Having previously worked in safety critical software roles, there were times when the team would get into disingenuous word smithing to avoid safety requirements. E.g., “the software isn’t ‘autonomous’ because it requires a human to make a destination decision at the onset”. In this case, using the word “dynamic” removes any ambiguity that the software is making continuous, time sensitive decisions after the human. Just calling it “driving software” probably isn’t prescriptive enough
Ive always tightened up a little when I heard their driver assist features described as Autopilot and Full Self Driving. To me the implications of what those words mean carry more gravitas than what I think Tesla is attaching to them.
My gut reaction is that we will see more along the lines of people watching movies/drunk autopiloting/edge case accidents that cause federal investigations/class action lawsuits/other things that would really put a dent in Tesla as a company and possibly stop them from accomplishing what I see as an amazing task.(start a new car company this day in age, seriously advance driver assist despite calling it more than it really is)
That said, Jalopnik has always been a sorta tabloid car mag that now seems to be largely staffed by people who resent cars to some degree. I will make an exception for the author of this article as Jason Torchinsky has always been a pretty good writer and is one of the few left at the site worth reading. Hes always been quick to pile on the negativity towards Tesla even when he says he is defending them or otherwise praising their products. I dont really have a problem with that, per se, but he has a clear anti Tesla bias where other manufacturers can seem to get more of a pass from him.
My personal opinion of Tesla is a mixed bag, specifically because they seem to have a branding/marketing problem despite my appreciation for them legitimately being the company that is trying to push car engineering forward and past ICE. I totally respect that.
So they're saying that the beta isn't the real thing and won’t be the real thing. Well, duh. If they had the real thing they wouldn't call it beta. Isn’t this a complete non-story?
Of course, I'm also skeptical of the tractability of the problem of actual self driving in the full range of conditions humans handle. It might end up one of those unfortunate problems where many different development paths get to 97% but none of them get to 100%.
I think the point is they say even when it's not beta, it still won't be the real thing, i.e. released version is still level 2. "FSD" is purely marketing.
FSD is the most important project for Tesla that can make it immensly profitable (10x-es the value of each car if it can serve customers non-stop without a driver).
So whatever people think of Tesla being too slow, Elon has the biggest incentive to make FSD working as soon as possible.
Personally he said that China wants him to enable it end of this year, and we know that China can arrange things even if it compromises safety (let's hope it doesn't increase the number of accidents).
Also a trip with Tesla FSD Beta is almost 2 times faster than Waymo right now, because it takes left turns as well, and drives aggressively. I expect Tesla to turn left turns off for FSD first.
I think to truly realize self-driving cars we need to rethink vehicles.
Either put cars on rails like maglev that routes them around foot traffic (still not perfect - people do die by trains, but more controllable - usually it's their dumb fault or suicide), OR hover cars that fly about 15 feet off the ground - high enough to dodge 99% of obstacles/bikes/pedestrians/etc. They could even "stack" vehicles then if there's congestion one group @ 15 feet the next at 45 feet.
Sure there's a lot of tech required for that, but it seems easier to pilot drones by ai than it does cars on streets with so many variables unknown.
33 comments
[ 6.6 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadI have never seen a Tesla advert where 'the driver gets in the car outside his home on City-A, presses a few buttons (a la Star Trek), falls asleep, the car starts driving to his/her office on City-B and honks to wake him/her up when it self-parks'
So.. features? (not picking a fight with you)
For cars to be fully self-driving they need to talk to one-another. Not just sensors, sensing, but also have the (regularoty mandated) transponders so that each vehicle notifies other vehicles of its position.
I remember when I was learning programming (many many years ago) the exercise to write the code where an object of defined dimensions AxB needs to move from Start to End in a closed circuit, with scatered obstacles inbetween. For me this is how a car needs to do. Tell other cars 'hey these are my dimensions, my current location, my speed, my direction'. With the current computing power it would be easy for cars to avoid one-another (to be proven ofc).
Though I wouldn't mind having such a transponder on my bicycle though if I had the option, or a "personal anonymised transponder". The problem with that implementation is that it's a nightmare to secure it. Blockchain may be used for that?
What comes to mind is the 'Fifth Element' movie, scene when Bruce Willis tampers with the electronics of this cab when police is chasing him, and he's burning the little 'points' he has left.
Perhaps an early implementation could be limited in specific parts (specific highways, when you are 'woken up' before the entry & exit' and the car takes over for the long stretch. A combination of transponders, sensors, magnetic beacons/'drivers' on the asphalt, GPS, radio antennas (kinda like Android/Google maps use for location).
I tend to NOT buy something until proven to work. Musk is a media/marketing freak. He will tell whatever he has to, to serve his business interest. It's down to us to jump the bandwagon, OR wait calmly until the 'thing' is actually produced, tested, proven.
Even assuming you have developed a standard protocol that can be used for cars to communicate with each other, how do you make sure they coordinate? How do you protect against malicious actors?
The programming analogy only works up to a point, the general problem would be coordinating multiple independent agents that you don't control, without knowing the code they're running.
My biggest issue is that it seems like regulations are being wielded as weapons against those that aren't in the good graces of the government for whatever reason. Companies have gotten crucified for false advertising claims and Tesla seems untouchable. People go to jail over securities fraud and Musk gets a slap on the wrist and is mouthing off on TV the next month. He's supposed to have a twitter sitter right now per his securities fraud agreement, would any reasonable lawyer have allowed him to tweet about gamestop or dogecoin?
My hunch is they do this to be more precise in terms of what the software actually controls.
Having previously worked in safety critical software roles, there were times when the team would get into disingenuous word smithing to avoid safety requirements. E.g., “the software isn’t ‘autonomous’ because it requires a human to make a destination decision at the onset”. In this case, using the word “dynamic” removes any ambiguity that the software is making continuous, time sensitive decisions after the human. Just calling it “driving software” probably isn’t prescriptive enough
My gut reaction is that we will see more along the lines of people watching movies/drunk autopiloting/edge case accidents that cause federal investigations/class action lawsuits/other things that would really put a dent in Tesla as a company and possibly stop them from accomplishing what I see as an amazing task.(start a new car company this day in age, seriously advance driver assist despite calling it more than it really is)
That said, Jalopnik has always been a sorta tabloid car mag that now seems to be largely staffed by people who resent cars to some degree. I will make an exception for the author of this article as Jason Torchinsky has always been a pretty good writer and is one of the few left at the site worth reading. Hes always been quick to pile on the negativity towards Tesla even when he says he is defending them or otherwise praising their products. I dont really have a problem with that, per se, but he has a clear anti Tesla bias where other manufacturers can seem to get more of a pass from him.
My personal opinion of Tesla is a mixed bag, specifically because they seem to have a branding/marketing problem despite my appreciation for them legitimately being the company that is trying to push car engineering forward and past ICE. I totally respect that.
Of course, I'm also skeptical of the tractability of the problem of actual self driving in the full range of conditions humans handle. It might end up one of those unfortunate problems where many different development paths get to 97% but none of them get to 100%.
Tesla regulatory filings differ from advertising.
Jalopnik is notorious for bashing tesla and shilling for their advertisers.
So whatever people think of Tesla being too slow, Elon has the biggest incentive to make FSD working as soon as possible.
Personally he said that China wants him to enable it end of this year, and we know that China can arrange things even if it compromises safety (let's hope it doesn't increase the number of accidents).
Also a trip with Tesla FSD Beta is almost 2 times faster than Waymo right now, because it takes left turns as well, and drives aggressively. I expect Tesla to turn left turns off for FSD first.
Either put cars on rails like maglev that routes them around foot traffic (still not perfect - people do die by trains, but more controllable - usually it's their dumb fault or suicide), OR hover cars that fly about 15 feet off the ground - high enough to dodge 99% of obstacles/bikes/pedestrians/etc. They could even "stack" vehicles then if there's congestion one group @ 15 feet the next at 45 feet.
Sure there's a lot of tech required for that, but it seems easier to pilot drones by ai than it does cars on streets with so many variables unknown.