Elon: FSD Beta tweets

[Robertj]

Maybe in two weeks , E M

https://twitter.com/x/status/1802109689184108853

 

[JulienW]

Maybe in two weeks , E M

One point release would take at least 2 weeks so Elon saying a "few" means mid or later July.

 

[willow_hiller]

Maybe in two weeks , E M

https://twitter.com/x/status/1802109689184108853

Any good educated guesses about what exactly Elon means when he says they're "polishing" or "smooth[ing]" out a point release?

Do we think Tesla is fine-tuning the end-to-end model with clips collected from employees and early testers?

Or maybe there's some sort of filter or smoothing applied to the inputs or outputs or the model that they're tweaking per point release?

 

[JulienW]

Any good educated guesses about what exactly Elon means when he says they're "polishing" or "smooth[ing]" out a point release?...

Why don't you tell us since you see as much info as EVERYONE else in the world sees (sans Tesla engineers).

 

[kabin]

Maybe in two weeks , E M

https://twitter.com/x/status/1802109689184108853

Reading between the lines when he says a few it sounds like they lost control of v12.4 and hope to stumble upon a few lucky breaks.

 

[willow_hiller]

it sounds like they lost control of v12.4 and hope to stumble upon a few lucky breaks.

What do you mean by "lost control" and "lucky breaks"?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Any good educated guesses about what exactly Elon means when he says they're "polishing" or "smooth[ing]" out a point release?

It is meant to obfuscate, so it is .

Since 12.3.x seemed to not have had any major retraining, using the same fundamental driving model throughout (as evidenced by IDENTICAL driving behavior in each point release except in the prompt-engineered locations - literally it takes EXACTLY the same line in a few test scenarios every time on every 12.3.x - completely different than 11.4.9), I assume the same prompt-engineering occurs for 12.4.x.

It’s just the polish on the . !

It certainly would be interesting to know more about how they do this, but I have not seen any educated discussion about how it is done on this site. Of course, that is not too surprising, because even on the much more scrutable mechanical side of things, it’s tough to get good information here much of the time. It’s usually just someone spouting off the latest myth or rumor and that is what we get. It’s not like NASIOC was back in the day!

 

[Ben W]

What do you mean by "lost control" and "lucky breaks"?

Presumably, "lost control" = serious regressions that they don't yet understand the cause of, or how to fix, and "lucky breaks" = figuring it out in a solvable way in a reasonable amount of time.

At some point, they will likely reach the compute ceiling of HW3 (given their model architecture), and after that the more information they try to stuff into the network for new tasks, the more it will degrade the old tasks. The progress of e.g. ChatGPT (from 2 to 3 to 4) has shown that increasing model size and complexity yields amazing gains, but this requires increasingly capable hardware to support: each successive GPT model has been about an order of magnitude bigger than the last. On fixed hardware, progress is much tougher, and HW3 is over five years old, practically an eternity in computer years. And HW4 is only about 50% faster than HW3. (3 cores vs 2, but otherwise similar.) So it's possible they're already bumping up against this ceiling. "AI5" will presumably be a much bigger leap, but none of the current fleet will benefit from it, unless they somehow make an upgrade path.