3rd Reveal

[Garlan Garner]

The Tesla Autopilot sensor suite has a 360 degree view around the car using cameras and ultrasonics and the forward radar can detect objects ahead of the car through rain/snow/fog/darkness, objects that human eyes may not be able to see. The Nvidia computer can integrate, process, and react to that information far faster than the human nervous system can. Some sort of augmented reality display in front of the driver can present information that the driver may not be aware of and show how the car is reacting to it.

It is time to move past the archaic notion that human drivers using their extremely limited senses and failure-prone attention span are the best way to control a car. Over the next year, with tens of thousands of new Teslas on the road in AP mode and gathering data, Tesla is going to clearly demonstrate that humans are far less safer drivers than Autopilot is. Elon already believes that has been demonstrated. Obviously not everyone agrees. More data will show who is correct and that data is being gathered right now.

I would have to disagree that any machine will surpass a sane human in driving.

There are too many things that a human can anticipate that a machine just can't. Things such as another drivers ( or pedestrian) intent or behavior.
Its amazing to me that mankind has traversed frapillions of miles on this earth with an extremely low casualty rate - relatively speaking. And mankind only has 2 cameras built into the front of its head. However I will say that our other sensors such as hearing, touch, smell and tasting aren't bad assistants. Not to mention other intangibles such as memory, depth perception, habit and muscle memory.... And all you have to do is feed it every other day or so and it performs - not for 260 miles, but ALL of the time....even in sleep mode.

The human brain takes in a tremendous amount of data and processes it all while driving - even to the point of boredom at times. 8 cameras and a dozen sensors and servos and motors are what's needed to attempt to match the driving experience of the brain. And driving is a pretty simple and childlike task.

 

[Booga]

I would have to disagree that any machine will surpass a sane human in driving.

There are too many things that a human can anticipate that a machine just can't. Things such as another drivers ( or pedestrian) intent or behavior.
Its amazing to me that mankind has traversed frapillions of miles on this earth with an extremely low casualty rate - relatively speaking. And mankind only has 2 cameras built into the front of its head. However I will say that our other sensors such as hearing, touch, smell and tasting aren't bad assistants. Not to mention other intangibles such as memory, depth perception, habit and muscle memory.... And all you have to do is feed it every other day or so and it performs - not for 260 miles, but ALL of the time....even in sleep mode.

The human brain takes in a tremendous amount of data and processes it all while driving - even to the point of boredom at times. 8 cameras and a dozen sensors and servos and motors are what's needed to attempt to match the driving experience of the brain. And driving is a pretty simple and childlike task.

It might depend on which human you pick. I'm sure we all know people who are not good drivers, but still somehow get by. I have family members whose attention isn't what it used to be and I bet this system will be better than a good portion of them. For the rest of us, using AP (Enhanced now) will allow us to focus on the items you listed - like intent/behavior of other drivers, and leave the car to handle the more mundane parts of driving.

 

[Garlan Garner]

It might depend on which human you pick. I'm sure we all know people who are not good drivers, but still somehow get by. I have family members whose attention isn't what it used to be and I bet this system will be better than a good portion of them. For the rest of us, using AP (Enhanced now) will allow us to focus on the items you listed - like intent/behavior of other drivers, and leave the car to handle the more mundane parts of driving.

I understand what you mean by it depending on which human you pick, however I'm including them ALL.

When all humans are included - driving is extremely safe.

The only way I see AP's surpassing the safety of Human Driving is if those who can't currently drive due to age, health or any other deficiency's purchase cars and let AP L5 autonomy take over. There are a massive number of people who can no longer drive and if technology now allows them to ...... fantastic.

Pardon me for a sec. I'm thinking out loud about something.
( Of course now that I think about it ..... they won't actually be driving....but they will need a license. How would they achieve that? Will DMV's give out a licence to a person that won't actually drive? Insurance? I would suppose they would at least need liability....hmmmm. )

 

[3Victoria]

I would have to disagree that any machine will surpass a sane human in driving.

There are too many things that a human can anticipate that a machine just can't. Things such as another drivers ( or pedestrian) intent or behavior. ....
..... And driving is a pretty simple and childlike task.

You seem to be contradicting yourself ... is it 'pretty simple' or 'too many things'?

While AP might not be better than the best drivers (ie all of us, cough cough ...) (and we saud that about the best chess and go players, too), we are talking about being better than the average driver ... including the distracted, drunk, ill, emotionally distraught, etc.

 

[Garlan Garner]

You seem to be contradicting yourself ... is it 'pretty simple' or 'too many things'?

While AP might not be better than the best drivers (ie all of us, cough cough ...) (and we saud that about the best chess and go players, too), we are talking about being better than the average driver ... including the distracted, drunk, ill, emotionally distraught, etc.

Misstyped.

I meant to say that there are a TON of things that a human can ingratiate that a machine just can't.

 

[dsvick]

Human's are horrible drivers. And I don't just mean the distracted, drunk, ill, emotionally distraught that 3Victoria mentioned, there are also the stupid, lazy, self important, angry, forgetful ones too. Yes, there are a lot of drivers out there and we aren't killing each other by the score, but we are certainly doing it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "...TON of things that a human can ingratiate that a machine can't." But, keep in mind that the computer software doesn't get distracted by emotions, isn't going to speed because you're running late (unless you tell it to), isn't going to weave in and out of traffic disrupting traffic all around them, will be well aware of the moron speeding up behind them, won't be applying their makeup, talking on the phone, or trying to see through the rain, fog, or snow.

Reading intentions are great are great when you're right, and can be devastating when you're wrong. Reading the actual actions that are done is even better and is always correct.

Yes, there are some situations where a human will be able to handle things better than a computer, but those will be the outliers, not the norm.

 

[Booga]

How would they achieve that? Will DMV's give out a licence to a person that won't actually drive? Insurance?

At that point, the question will become why they own a car and don't just hail a fully-automated Tesla. At that point, the Tesla is covered by its own insurance. If you want to own the car, you'll still likely want some coverage (theft, hail damages, etc.), and so it doesn't go away entirely. Liability may not be necessary if Tesla has something worked out to include that for fully self driving modes. This is definitely 1 item that is potentially "underpriced" into their 1-time L5 option today. If you ask me, that is an ongoing expense, and so Tesla is likely to charge an annual fee plus a 1-time upfront charge to get Level 5 autonomy. I think the change will be much like supercharging - it was blanket free and unlimited at first, but eventually they have to pass on the actual costs.

 

[Model 3]

Of course now that I think about it ..... they won't actually be driving....but they will need a license. How would they achieve that? Will DMV's give out a licence to a person that won't actually drive?

My understanding of the "Level 5 autonomous driving" is that the car does not require a driver, and therefor not a drivers license unless you try to drive it manually.

 

[Weezer Fan]

I was hoping for some news (partial reveal?) before the end of the year.

 

[flamingoezz]

I would have to disagree that any machine will surpass a sane human in driving.

There are too many things that a human can anticipate that a machine just can't. Things such as another drivers ( or pedestrian) intent or behavior.

While a car itself can't at this point determine which way a pedestrian is looking to see the likelihood that they will enter your path, they can determine that the object is a person and near your path. some may say that the car is dumb, but some might argue that is safer -- because while a driver may be lulled into a false sense of security with a pedestrian walking parallel to the road, if the person does turn to cross the road as you are passing, you are more likely to hit them than the autonomous car is. This can make for a little bit of an awkward encounter as seen in the new tesla autonomy video put out this week, but this is version 1.0 of city driving for tesla. There is no doubt that encounter will become smoother

Check out this video on the deep learning that tesla is working into AP2.0. Your car will know the landscape, speed generally travelled, and paths generally travelled on roads that neither you or your car have been on. Beyond that, you car can see 360 degrees at all times, has quicker response than a human, can identify objects through rain/snow better than human eyes and your sensors/cameras never get tired.

It is just a matter of improving the logic and technology to make calculations faster than a human that is keeping an autonomous car from being safer than ANY human driver.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aVc84mGJfE

 

[ModelNforNerd]

I understand what you mean by it depending on which human you pick, however I'm including them ALL.

When all humans are included - driving is extremely safe.

The only way I see AP's surpassing the safety of Human Driving is if those who can't currently drive due to age, health or any other deficiency's purchase cars and let AP L5 autonomy take over. There are a massive number of people who can no longer drive and if technology now allows them to ...... fantastic.

Pardon me for a sec. I'm thinking out loud about something.
( Of course now that I think about it ..... they won't actually be driving....but they will need a license. How would they achieve that? Will DMV's give out a licence to a person that won't actually drive? Insurance? I would suppose they would at least need liability....hmmmm. )

And another legal question, since we know someone will do it....

if you're in the vehicle and impaired, would it technically be a DUI if you never took control of the vehicle and were only a passenger to your Tesla's AI, or would states use their "operating" catch-all, where if you are in the drivers seat and the vehicle is at least running/powered on, you are considered to be Operating Under the Influence??

 

[FloridaJohn]

And another legal question, since we know someone will do it....

if you're in the vehicle and impaired, would it technically be a DUI if you never took control of the vehicle and were only a passenger to your Tesla's AI, or would states use their "operating" catch-all, where if you are in the drivers seat and the vehicle is at least running/powered on, you are considered to be Operating Under the Influence??

I think for the time being, you would be the "operator."

However, this will be the legal issue that needs to be addressed by new law. Without a legal framework, it is difficult to predict who is at fault if something goes wrong in that situation. This issue is also true for a true "self driving" car, where there may not even be a person in the car at all. Who is responsible then, if something happens? The manufacturer, or the person that "sent" or "summoned" the car?

 

[JeffK]

While a car itself can't at this point determine which way a pedestrian is looking to see the likelihood that they will enter your path

Facial recognition and detection is really good these days. There's no reason that can't be put into the car.

Drag a picture in the Try the API box on Google's Vision API website (scroll down a bit on the page):
Vision API - Image Content Analysis | Google Cloud Platform

See the info that it can the from your pic. It can even pick out where a face is facing...

 

[JeffK]

I think for the time being, you would be the "operator."

However, this will be the legal issue that needs to be addressed by new law. Without a legal framework, it is difficult to predict who is at fault if something goes wrong in that situation. This issue is also true for a true "self driving" car, where there may not even be a person in the car at all. Who is responsible then, if something happens? The manufacturer, or the person that "sent" or "summoned" the car?

Some states are adoption laws where it clearly cites the manufacture as the operator in a self driving car and requires the manufacturer to have insurance.

As for alcohol, the laws are pretty clear about open containers, but as far as a drunk person, I don't think there'd be ambiguity if the drunk person is not physically in the driver's seat.
That said, if as a group you're having the car drive you home, it get's a little iffy. Why would the cop pull over the car in the first place? If it's a "random check" then it would be curious how that would play out. Cops these days can be unpredictable. Once there's an actual court case and some public exposure then people will be more knowledgeable about the matter.

"I wasn't driving officer, I swear..."

 

[Model 3]

I don't think there'd be ambiguity if the drunk person is not physically in the driver's seat.

Yes, and that is what I guess will be the point: As long as you are sitting behind the steering wheel/in the driver's seat the law will see you as the driver, or someone that is likely to take over control of the car at any time. Here in Norway you can be charged as a "drunken driver" if your open the drivers door and has the key on you or in the car and is drunk. So I think if anyone that does not have a drivers license or is incapable to drive, they will - just as today - have to sit in a passenger seat. If no-one in the car is capable to legally drive the car, the drivers seat has to be empty.

 

[Topher]

What's the benefit of augmented reality, instead of just looking through the windshield?

Simple example: The name of the street (current and cross) can be displayed.

Thank you kindly.

 

[dsvick]

What's the benefit of augmented reality, instead of just looking through the windshield?

Driving at night or any other time there is reduced visibility the system would be able to highlight things you probably can't see.

 

[dragonxt]

When will tesla reveal part 2 of model 3?

Elon has mentioned on twitter that he considered the AP 2.0 update as Model 3 part two... But I'm going to refer that to when they show part 2 of the car. Could that be what the January 17th announcement be? Or could that be Tesla HUD?

 

[S'toon]

3rd Reveal

 

[dragonxt]

Around Marchish.

Assuming they will announce HUD for Model 3, that means anyone purchasing Model S or X in Dec (For Free Supercharging) and Delays to March will not get HUD. *Cough* Tesla also says to get free supercharging your car needs to be delivered by April 1st. Hmmmm....

Safe bet you should ignore free supercharging for life and order later for HUD/Some other great feature?