Search results

Obviously I disagree with your interpretation of Tesla’s claim (as well as how I view a reasonable person would take it) hence I posted my disagreement.

I would agree such a statement would be a useful start to fixing things, if they really are that much behind from their existing claims like ”Level 5 no geofence feature complete” ... ”at end of 2019”.

That is not what Tesla claimed on Autonomy Investor Day. On Autonomy Investor Day earlier in 2019 Tesla claimed ”feature complete” meant ”Level 5 no geofence”. That claim is very different from ”City NOA feature complete”.

I am concerned Tesla lied when they said they expected to be ”Level 5 no geofence feature complete” at the end of 2019. This lie would be concerning on multiple levels, not only from lying to customers and market perspective, but from the perspective that Tesla would for some reason need to...

I think it can be argued Tesla would have done just as well or even better had they not made the lofty ”sleep in your car” Level 5 no geofence ”feature complete” promises for AP2/3 in 2016-2019 and just focused on great BEV technology and gradual AP progress. I continue to think this may be one...

I’m not so concerned whether or not Tesla misses ”feature complete” at the end of 2019, after all it was always an internal deadline that would not be visible to the outside anyway. What I am concerned is that their ”feature complete” may not have anything to do with ”Level 5 no geofence...

That is not correct. If someone posted such a thing, it would be wrong. Well, misleading at least. Level 5 is allowed to be limited to a market (say, the U.S.) and human driveable conditions but limiting it to some other ODD would demote it to Level 4. So it can have a geofence (to the market)...

Well, not really where we differ mainly, the geofence thing is more of a side point. I think the notion that Tesla is any kind of feature complete for Level 5 (within U.S. or any market for that matter) is pretty far off. But that is their expectation for end of 2019 and they haven’t retracted...

Now, having said the above, I am not unreasonable by any means. If Tesla simply tongue slipped and ”Level 5 no geofence feature complete” at the end of 2019 actually meant ”Level 5 with continental U.S. geofence feature complete” I would still consider that close enough and let it slide. Of...

FSD is purely Tesla terminology, but even if it wasn’t you calling FSD Level 3+ makes no sense. Only Level 5 is ”Full” according to SAE (Full Automation), Level 4 is High Automation and Level 3 is Conditional Automation. Only Level 5 is ”full” anything in any of the normally used definitions...

So still nothing for those who purchased FSD early if FSD sneak preview does not require FSD. Not that we have the HW3 upgrade either, but just noting how there are still no FSD differentiating features promised for summer 2017.

When has Tesla spoken of FSD being anything other than Level 5 though? And as FSD is a Tesla-only term, I would say it must be considered Level 5. Level 3+ is just inventing stuff in this context. This is not entirely accurate. SAE allows manufacturers to limit the ODD to a market and human...

I see two possible reasons: 1. He is telling the truth and Tesla is far more advanced than cynics expect when it comes to autonomous driving. 2. He is indeed doing what you say i.e. lying for personal / business gain. We don’t know which one. I’m not bying the third option that he just...

@diplomat33 ”Starting to roll out feature complete” is a fairly well defined statement and it seems it does not mean what you think it means, then. If we must find more useful and accurate words for this, may I suggest Tesla is starting to roll out some features of the Automatic Driving on City...

Yeah, unfortunately that is possible.

”Level 5 no geofence” then? Because that is what ”feature complete” means unless Elon Musk lied at Autonomy Investor Day or you are trying to re-define ”feature complete” into something that was not announced? Looking forward to full traffic sign reading and reacting to humans directing...

It would have been the easiest thing back in 2016 and again 2019 for Elon to not use Level 5 when describing AP2/HW3 and use some other wording instead. These were said at major Tesla events respectively, streamed to the world to hear. It would have been the easiest thing back in January 2017...

A thing can be a massive hoax even if not all elements of it are. I agree we don’t know yet if AP2 (upgraded by Tesla as need be) Level 5 is a hoax. I hope it is not.

If they retrofit it, that is of course one thing, and that would be a mitigating factor. But Elon is on record as announcing Level 5 no geofence feature complete for HW3 by end of this year and robotaxis next year on HW3. That must mean the hardware can do FSD. Unless he was not truthful of...

It would be one thing if it was merely to seek investment. This was a consumer product sold.

I was making a point for the benefit of the readers. I did not expect a response from you necessarily. Many Tesla newcomers gloss over this history either due to ignorance or due to it being an inconvenient reality that is easier ignored than explained or woven into whatever is the current...

Can’t be. Elon said 2016 Model S/X AP2 is already Level 5 capable hardware and on Autonomy Investor Day he said HW3 is the processor upgrade needed for Level 5 no geofence feature complete by end of 2019. If it is Level 5, it must be FSD. Unless you are saying Elon lied?

By summer 2017 definitely, I hear. p.s. It diverged officially with the cones already earlier.

@DrLegoHair So, at what point will "Full Self-Driving Capability" features noticeably depart from "Enhanced Autopilot" features for us who bought Autopilot 2 prior to 1/23/17? 3 months maybe, 6 months definitely? By the way, there were ton of folks piling on people on TMC who dared to worry...

Yes, we knew we were buying FSD differentiating features definitely by summer 2017: None have shipped yet for us, though. This was your point, right? ;)

Because that is how SAE defines it. Manufacturer declares which SAE Level their car is designed for, what the ODD is and so forth. Regulators may add their own layer to this of course.

Nope. Elon did not claim FSD feature complete. He claimed Level 5 no geofence feature complete at the end of 2019 (expectation). Both Level 5 and feature complete are well defined terms with specific meaning and context in the relevant realms. There is nothing vague about this. The claim is...

I don’t disagree with that. My response was to the responsibility part. Once Level 4 has accepted responsibility, it can not demand anyone take it or forcibly give it away. The only thing it can do is reach a safe place (basically park safely) and turn off, after which the car is nobody’s...

Nope, can not do that. Level 4 must always be able to reach MRC without a responsible driver. Remember, Level 4 allows driver to leave the car. Level 4 is almost as tough a nut to crack as Level 5 because of this, when taken out of trivial ODD. This is why Level 3 may still have some life...

You make it sound like Tesla is somehow ahead of the pack in visual crash avoidance. In actual fact, they are behind the pack. Many other manufacturers have visual stopped vehicle avoidance at a level significantly more reliable than Tesla.

@tomc603 @diplomat33 No matter if Teslas perform the DDT on the ODD, they do not perform MRC and that is why they are no way Level 4-5 functional at this stage. DDT/ODD without MRC is Level 3 at best and not even that given that the DDT can not be performed without driver monitoring. Whether...

But Level 4-5 prototypes can require safety drivers and still be Level 4-5. SAE is specific about this. It is all in the standard. Just read it.

It is not subjective, since Level is a manufacturer definition. Either the manufacturer defines the Level or they do not. Prototypes are specifically included in the Level. Waymo designates their cars as Level 4, so their prototypes are Level 4. Tesla has stated goal of Level 5 but so far have...

Waymo reads traffic signs, Waymo even reads the arm of a police officer waving for the traffic to move ahead when traffic lights have been turned off. They can even detect body movements from pedestrians to estimate their movements. Your lack of knowledge on Waymo makes it easy to dismiss how...

Also there is a significant difference in the automatic emergency braking and maneuvering capabilities of competing cars compared to their Autopilot-like driver assists. They are not the same thing. The latter are often more rudimentary by design compared to Tesla, while the former on the other...

Sure, the communication protocol itself certainly is open to risks, but the car would still have to make a holistic determination regarding what to with that information and could consider the data suspect in the sense that it would only take non-dangerous, defensive action due to it, which...

Thank you for that useful argumentation. :)

It could require HW3 to work sufficiently well for anything more than a warning (and launching HW3 features is a can of worms retrofit-wise), for example. Maybe they are waiting to integrate and validate more mapping data for it work at all. Look, I’m not saying Tesla isn’t working on improving...

Not at all. It just shows it has not been released yet for whatever reason. We don’t know what the reason is. Smart Summon was delayed by a year and still misses all sorts of stuff all the time.

If history is any judge, it will initially miss a lot of cases, but that’s okay because the driver will catch them.

Sometimes I just don’t understand @diplomat33. I would consider it absolutely the normal response to expect intial stop sign/red light recognition from Tesla to miss some signs/lights (based on bad maps, bad vision, what have you), as @am_dmd notes above as well... to the extent that it is very...

Why would V2V have to increase risks? Obviously the cars could and should still use their other senses to make the best overall judgement of a given situation. If there is a V2V message of a hidden car approaching from the side, slow down extra. If not, you still slow down when you see it or...

That is not what I said. I said it will likely miss stops and that it is realistic, based both on history of Tesla Autopilot and what little we know of the feature (e.g. map use, the initial stop recognition already out there etc.), to expect this. At the very least I consider it unrealistic...

Sounds like a privacy nightmare. Not saying it won’t happen, just that privacy is one upside of local V2V.

@diplomat33 this is the point I responded to: Not this which is completely different: You claimed Tesla would not release a traffic light response that relies on bad map data so that the car will plow through red lights — and I said Tesla had done an absolutely comparable thing with ”EAP”...

This is of course true. Even though Tesla uses OpenStreetMap as a data source, does not mean they use it real-time. Their mapping and navigation setup is a more complex one with variety of open source and custom pieces.

Why not? In late 2016 Tesla released a rudimentary version of Autopilot 2 that was so bad that it would totally have done the sort of dangerous things you say in this thread Tesla would never release to the public. The whole launch strategy for Autopilot 2+ — back then and still today — from...

This is completely wrong from @DopeGhoti. Tesla’s mapping history is a complex one, but to cut a long story short, in around 2017 (much before Smart Summon anyway) Tesla adopted OpenStreetMaps as their baseline for routing, mapping and navigation. They use it for a wide variety of things, of...

While I do think Tesla is only going to ramp up the retrofits slowly and @diplomat33 ’s expecation of some ”mass retrofits” starting at some point is possibly too optimistic, there is at least one way in which the rate can still ”greatly” increase: making the retrofit available to all SCs...

@bhzmark Well, actually more than likely the old thread of this title was effectively true. Ghost braking happened and that caused a swerve in slippery conditions. Sudden ghost braking certainly is akin to AEB in TACC, whether or not it is exactly AEB. The title now is washed to mean nothing...