It was a mind-reader at CA DMV that attributed those words to Tesla/CJ Moore. Then it was propagated by a known TSLAQ nutter and picked-up by the media and FUDsters like you.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
2016 FSD video: there was an accident with roadside barrier on Tesla property
- Thread starter Terminator857
- Start date
One huge difference.
- Tesla claimed FSD to be real, "prove" that with the demo video (see the context below), sold the feature openly to customers and took their money. IMO this is fraud.
- Google did not sell anything based on their demo.
Given that no one has ever solved autonomy, how does Tesla's own engineers have a leg up over anyone? And wow, such a unique position for a company's engineers to disagree with management. Never heard of that happening or had it happen to myself. /s
Again, my point was that this is hardly newsworthy, except that it's so easy to target FSD and Musk's failed predictions - to generate readership. We have a good handful of old threads here on TMC that are probably juicier than this NYT clickbait. The news that Tesla pretty much staged that demo run has been known for years. NYC decided it's time to rehash some old news with some current interviews. Yawn.
Are we here to talk about stock market garbage, or are we here to talk about real technology and the real rate of improvement? No credible analyst is assigning much if any autonomy to Tesla's current valuation, so I don't know why you're yammering on about TSLAQ and FUD.
The mind reading you're attributing CJ's words to was in direct reference to Elon's statements about L5 capability by the end of 2021, with Elon stating that Tesla would 100% be there and this mind-reader apparently inferring that CJ clarified those statements don't match engineering reality. This is the exact quote from the CA DMV's memo/minutes following their meeting
Considering we're here at the end of 2021 and nowhere near L5 capability, it seems this mind-reader was also a fortune-teller. That's not FUD, it's reality and it unsurprisingly does not align with Elon's grandiose claims.
Last edited by a moderator:
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Well, some of Elon's grandiose claims come true and some don't (or get delayed).
We've to take the good with the bad.
There is no such thing as solving autonomy.
Instead there are established methods to solve problems in autonomy. Things that get you one step closer to an autonomy.
The most important aspect is to have a goal of what you wish to achieve. Do you wish to achieve semi-autonomy where there will always be a human to save the day? or do you wish to have to have a truly autonomous system?
If you go for a truly autonomous system you need to define the limitations.
Tesla communicated to its customers that the intention was truly autonomous, and it would work work in almost all circumstances.
As a hardware Engineer there is no question in my mind that engineers were terrified of what Elon was promising while also limiting what they could use to achieve that.
Safety critical systems have redundancy whenever possible. That's just how they're designed regardless, but Tesla doesn't have any sensor redundancy.
Autonomous systems need to see the world around them, but there is no down facing camera for parking lots
There is no sensor cleaning
There is no frontal Lidar so you're entirely reliant on the visual spectrum.
There is no stereo camera so you're faced with doing SW tricks to derive 3D data
In addition to these the car lacks the HW to make semi-autonomous driving easier like there is no dedicated driving monitoring system so the customer has to deal with the torque sensor. The car even lacks of basic rain sensor and instead has to rely on its self-driving computer for that functionality which to do this day still doesn't compare with a cheap sensor.
The result was cheap HW that Tesla could have really healthy margins on while pushing SW promises further and further into the future.
At some point this cheap HW is going to come back to haunt Tesla as more and more customers realize that it's just not getting the job done. Whether that job is semi-automated highway assist or autonomous driving.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Tesla rejects it.
Just like they rejected $1 Billion in cash from Germany.
Elon has repeatedly said - he goes by basic science. He thinks humans don't have lidar and still drive. So, NN, given enough training should be able to drive without lidar. He may be right or wrong - but thats the basic thing. Everything else is speculation / conspiracy theory / TSLAQ stuff.
There is a simple "solution" to L5 autonomy: hire a chauffeur (or a team of chauffeurs for 24/7 availability).
IMO it is fair to call "autonomy a solved problem" when one can provide the same functionality without employing a human driver, just AI. With this logic, Cameras should be enough - assuming one could build an AI as capable as a professional chauffeur. This is a pretty big assumption that may turn out to be false.
Unfortunately, Tesla is not even close to solving autonomy. Any claims of "autonomy [being] basically a solved problem" are just bs.
Waymo is way closer, they already are able to commercially operate cars with just passengers (and no driver) on public streets. I would not call their AI even close to being as competent as a human chauffeur and areas they operate are limited. Nevertheless, Waymo is many years ahead of Tesla.
IMO it is fair to call "autonomy a solved problem" when one can provide the same functionality without employing a human driver, just AI. With this logic, Cameras should be enough - assuming one could build an AI as capable as a professional chauffeur. This is a pretty big assumption that may turn out to be false.
Unfortunately, Tesla is not even close to solving autonomy. Any claims of "autonomy [being] basically a solved problem" are just bs.
Waymo is way closer, they already are able to commercially operate cars with just passengers (and no driver) on public streets. I would not call their AI even close to being as competent as a human chauffeur and areas they operate are limited. Nevertheless, Waymo is many years ahead of Tesla.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
powertoold
Active Member
This whole Elon fsd thing is simple:
1) fsd is way more difficult than Elon thought (also underestimated by many developers), as he admitted in recent tweets
2) Elon admitted he’s usually late, and in the case of fsd, way late
3) even though he’s late, his ”vision” (back from ~2014) is still correct
4) fsd beta shows that vision-only fsd is possible and coming ”sooner”
5) Karpathy and team are more enthusiastic about the vision-only approach than ever
6) tesla’s fsd approach is and has been the best and most business-savvy
1) fsd is way more difficult than Elon thought (also underestimated by many developers), as he admitted in recent tweets
2) Elon admitted he’s usually late, and in the case of fsd, way late
3) even though he’s late, his ”vision” (back from ~2014) is still correct
4) fsd beta shows that vision-only fsd is possible and coming ”sooner”
5) Karpathy and team are more enthusiastic about the vision-only approach than ever
6) tesla’s fsd approach is and has been the best and most business-savvy
EVNow
Well-Known Member
The mind-reader at DMV attributed those words to Tesla/CJ and then DMV <Redacted> it afterwards. We had a thread whose title was that redacted statement from DMV. They had the entire doc and focused only on the made-up redacted statement. Similarly, your entire premise is based upon text DMV had to strike from their doc.
"DMV asked CJ to address, from an engineering perspective, Elon's messaging about L5 capability by the end of the year. <Redacted> Elon's tweet does not match engineering reality per CJ"
So many threads from known FUDster who trot out the same tired lies and garbage hoping it'll stick and get pick-up by the media.
"DMV asked CJ to address, from an engineering perspective, Elon's messaging about L5 capability by the end of the year. <Redacted> Elon's tweet does not match engineering reality per CJ"
So many threads from known FUDster who trot out the same tired lies and garbage hoping it'll stick and get pick-up by the media.
powertoold
Active Member
FTFY
I actually think it’s already solved (as an approach). Tesla is just doing all they can to fit it into the current fsd chip’s flops.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
How do you know CJ didn’t say it?
I’ve never understood what the controversy is here. Elons tweet didn’t match engineering reality. Is it really unthinkable that the head of AP was able to recognize that fact and answered the DMVs question truthfully?
powertoold
Active Member
Ok but why did the dmv redact it? What’s more likely: dmv redacted because it wasn’t verbatim or cj said those words?
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
None of the document is verbatim. It’s not a transcript.
My guess is that the redacted it because they would like people they interview to be honest with them and not worried that what they say could get them fired. The statement could be seen as critical of the CEO.
Is the claim that CJ said level 5 is happening on Elon’s timeline? I’m confused about how the skeptics think CJ answered the question.
Exactly this.
You desperately want to believe that Tesla/CJ said those word, but DMV had to strike it in their doc. Now the FUDsters latch onto that redacted text and want to believe they know something important when they weren't there.
You desperately want to believe that Tesla/CJ said those word, but DMV had to strike it in their doc. Now the FUDsters latch onto that redacted text and want to believe they know something important when they weren't there.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
So you think CJ said that Elon’s tweet matched engineering reality?
Why would anyone think it was a quote? It’s not a transcript and it’s not in quotes.
Similar threads
