Almost ready with FSD Beta V9

[EVNow]

Spacex is very clearly not tesla.

BTW, I was replying to someone who suggested Musk is running out of "luck".

 

[Dan D.]

No different than a sign post that is intended as a misleading art. Dangerous and should be banned.

The painted tunnels probably are art, and possibly not on drivable roads. I'm suspicious if the second is real or photoshopped too.

I was just making a point about relying on vision as the only long-range sensor. Would vision-only crash through an entirely monochrome wall too?

 

[EVNow]

They probably are art, and possibly not on drivable roads. I'm suspicious if the second is real or photoshopped too.

I was just making a point about relying on vision as the only long-range sensor. Would vision-only crash through an entirely monochrome wall too?

One other improvement Tesla can do is to change over to stereo vision (they have already hinted at that - saying they can find the distance by using stereo vision of the front two cameras). Ofcourse, color blind people - as well as one eyed, drive fairly well - but stereo vision would add to the accuracy.

In the above cases, my guess is we can make out those are walls because of stereo vision.

 

[Fernand]

So alright already, when do we get it ?

 

[Dan D.]

One other improvement Tesla can do is to change over to stereo vision (they have already hinted at that - saying they can find the distance by using stereo vision of the front two cameras). Ofcourse, color blind people - as well as one eyed, drive fairly well - but stereo vision would add to the accuracy.

In the above cases, my guess is we can make out those are walls because of stereo vision.

There'll have to be optical-illusion perception as well as anti-lemming behavior in the software. "Just because the lead car drove off the cliff are you going to too?"

 

[gearchruncher]

What’s really going to be interesting is when people realize a Level 3-5 solution will be required to obey the speed limit.

This has always fascinated me as part of getting autonomous driving accepted by society. It will need to obey every law. Speed, waiting at stop signs for X seconds, stopping for yellow lights, only moving left to pass, turn signals, etc. It's going to drive quite a bit differently than human drivers around it, which will cause some interesting integration issues when 10% of the cars are self driving and the rest are still humans.

If I can read, play games, or sleep while the car drives I couldn't care less what speed it does it at

You will care if it takes 20% longer to get where you were going and you have to leave earlier. But worse, society is going to hate them when they camp on one lane roads at exactly the speed limit. I guess if they are programmed to follow all the laws they will pull off at the pull outs and let everyone behind pass though. There will be lots of other places they slow everyone else down too, like sitting at stop signs for extended times. In some states you're not allowed to enter an intersection if there is another vehicle in it even with a green light (prevents gridlock). Can you imagine a car doing that at every light? You're also supposed to slow way down for yield signs and crosswalks even when nobody is present.

And then there are lots of other really interesting considerations. At some point, there are enough self driving cars that it's impossible to speed because they just form a solid roadblock at the speed limit. Which sounds great, except now many cities will loose a bunch of revenue from tickets. How will society change to keep the police departments and small towns funded?

 

[run-the-joules]

You will care if it takes 20% longer to get where you were going and you have to leave earlier.

Depends rather a lot. If I can work while I'm commuting, guess what, I'm starting my commute at the beginning of my workday and timing my departure so my workday ends when I get home. Very little of my job requires me to be physically there for more than 5-6 hours a week.

A non-trivial amount of my life is wasted not because of where I physically am, but because I am physically there *and* must be mentally engaged in the act of driving because I am ultimately the operator of the car. If that weren't the case, I don't mind spending more time in the car when going to run errands or to a friend's house or whatever(other than the mediocre seats, but I can get past that).

 

[Knightshade]

You will care if it takes 20% longer to get where you were going and you have to leave earlier.

No, I really really won't.


Right now if I have a 30 minute drive, that's 30 wasted minutes I can't be doing much else besides maybe talking to someone or listening to some audio.

If an L5 drive takes 36 minutes that's 35 of them that are useful minutes. I could be working on a phone or laptop, I could be reading a book, playing a game...hell I could be sleeping so the 6 minutes I lost getting up early is repaid 5 fold.

You'd have to be nuts to be upset about that trade. You end up with way less wasted time overall in your life.

But worse, society is going to hate them when they camp on one lane roads at exactly the speed limit. I guess if they are programmed to follow all the laws they will pull off at the pull outs and let everyone behind pass though.

Humans already do this all the time- and sometimes DON'T pull off at those.

There will be lots of other places they slow everyone else down too, like sitting at stop signs for extended times. In some states you're not allowed to enter an intersection if there is another vehicle in it even with a green light (prevents gridlock). Can you imagine a car doing that at every light

Yes I can.

It'd prevent gridlock

Most traffic is caused by idiot humans. Less of them driving, the less traffic you'll have.

And then there are lots of other really interesting considerations. At some point, there are enough self driving cars that it's impossible to speed because they just form a solid roadblock at the speed limit. Which sounds great, except now many cities will loose a bunch of revenue from tickets.

That still sounds great.

That was a terrible way to fund anything in the first place.

How will society change to keep the police departments and small towns funded?

If there's far less traffic violations you need far less traffic cops.

They can go get other jobs.



BTW, the revenue issues you list aren't really as widespread as many imagine them to be nationally, last study I saw on this the majority of places that got a LOT of revenue this way were in only a handful of states-Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, Oklahoma and Texas.

Since most states don't heavily rely on this in the first place surely they can move to whatever those other states do.

 

[gearchruncher]

Humans already do this all the time- and sometimes DON'T pull off at those.

Yes, humans are awful. But remember, your car will not be, which means it will have to stop constantly to not be breaking the law. You're saying you wouldn't care at all if your car was constantly coming to a full stop on the side of the road in order to meet the letter of the law?

Yes I can.

It'd prevent gridlock

You can imagine cars waiting until the car in front of you has FULLY cleared the intersection until you enter? Light just turned green, no cars on the road ahead, you're second in line. Human driver crawls forward. You pull to the line, wait for them to clear the other side (100+ feet), then accelerate. You'd get 2-3 cars per light through. It would make traffic so much worse in so many places.

I could be working on a phone or laptop,

Not in most states with distracted driving laws. We're going to need to change a lot of laws to enable the first self driving car to actually allow the "driver" to not pay attention to the road.

You're looking at the perfect eventual future where all cars are self driving. Clearly, at that point we can change laws and optimize and it sounds amazing. My question is what is it like to be in the FIRST self driving car that has to obey ALL laws, but also has to interact with 99.9999% of other cars being driven by humans. Can you imagine how pissed off people will be at self driving cars as they sit at green lights waiting for the car on the other side to clear because that's some obscure law on the books? They will hate them- which can lead to regulations against them. And the cops are going to hate them- and the cops are powerful forces in shaping laws. Yes, it's an awful way to collect revenue- but it's awful today too, and we have it, so why won't it be a pressure against self driving vehicles as well?

I'd wager that in some dense urban areas during congestion, it may be literally impossible to cross an intersection without breaking a law. We have a "blocking the box" law in Seattle. You know what the issue is? If someone legally turns right on red in front of you, they can actually take up the space you were going to use, and now they're out of the intersection, and you're stuck in it. Law broken.

There's also a fun one- many states have restrictive yellow light laws- Technically, if an aggressive stop would bring the car to a stop before the intersection line, the law says you should do it, even if you would have cleared the intersection at your speed. So your FSD car will be slamming the brakes for many yellow lights. Or slowing WAY down for every intersection before it gets there. Lots of rear end accidents in the future. Many state laws say you are required to slow down for every single intersection (and around curves, hill crests, narrow roads, or near any pedestrians), even if you didn't "need" to.

I want the self driving future as much as anyone, but I do think the transition period is going to be very, very interesting, and it's going to hurt adoption of self driving cars. They are going to be seen as expensive, elitist, an an obstruction to other motorists as they obey every single law and a revenue reduction to local cities (or a huge boon as they break obscure, local laws). It's yet another challenge FSD will face.

BTW, the revenue issues you list aren't really as widespread as many imagine them to be nationally, last study I saw on this the majority of places that got a LOT of revenue this way were in only a handful of states-Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, Oklahoma and Texas.

5% of the annual budget of a local suburb of Seattle comes from red light tickets from 5 intersections. 90% of those tickets are rolling right turns. Ticket revenue collection is really important to a lot of city budgets.

 

[Knightshade]

Yes, humans are awful. But remember, your car will not be, which means it will have to stop constantly to not be breaking the law. You're saying you wouldn't care at all if your car was constantly coming to a full stop on the side of the road in order to meet the letter of the law?

Why would I?

I'm not longer having to waste huge chunks of time even noticing it's doing that.

I'm instead making use of my driving time doing stuff I actually want or need to do instead.

That's a vast life improvement to anyone who has anything in their life worth spending time on other than staring at a road.

You can imagine cars waiting until the car in front of you has FULLY cleared the intersection until you enter? Light just turned green, no cars on the road ahead, you're second in line. Human driver crawls forward. You pull to the line, wait for them to clear the other side (100+ feet), then accelerate. You'd get 2-3 cars per light through. It would make traffic so much worse in so many places.

I think you are pretty badly confused on what the law actually says in that situation.

There's no legal requirement at all to wait in the situation you described.

You only have to wait if there ARE cars on the road ahead, and no room for yours to clear the intersection fully over there.


For example the NYC law on this topic:

Obstructing traffic at intersection. When vehicular traffic is stopped on the opposite side of an intersection, no person shall drive a vehicle into such intersection, except when making a turn, unless there is adequate space on the opposite side of the intersection to accommodate the vehicle the person is driving, notwithstanding the indication of a traffic control signal which would permit the person to proceed.

Note the part in bold?

So if there's nobody ahead of the lead car- ie no backed up traffic on the other side of the intersection- there's nothing illegal about immediately following the lead car.

If there IS traffic backed up, then NOT entering will reduce gridlock

Which is another plus for self driving cars

Not in most states with distracted driving laws.

Yes, in all states with such laws

Because I would not be the driver.

I wouldn't even need to be in the drivers seat

We're going to need to change a lot of laws to enable the first self driving car to actually allow the "driver" to not pay attention to the road.

This, again, is absolutely untrue.

First- you seem to not understand in a self driving car the human is not a driver

Hell- in my own state the person in the drivers seat of a self driving car does not even need to have a drivers license


So laws restricting the driver don't apply to them.

Doing what I describe is allowed today in some states- just nobody has a broadly working L4 or L5 system yet.

You're looking at the perfect eventual future where all cars are self driving.

No, I'm looking at the one where mine is.

It'll be awesome.

Clearly, at that point we can change laws

Again, they've already changed in a number of states- mine included. Years ago in many cases.

Some others will need to catch up, but they can easily copy the existing laws in some states.

. My question is what is it like to be in the FIRST self driving car that has to obey ALL laws, but also has to interact with 99.9999% of other cars being driven by humans.

It'll be fantastic.

You'd get back a ton of time you used to have to waste driving.

.
Can you imagine how pissed off people will be at self driving cars as they sit at green lights waiting for the car on the other side to clear because that's some obscure law on the books?

Again you appear to not understand the law here.

.
And the cops are going to hate them- and the cops are powerful forces in shaping laws. Yes, it's an awful way to collect revenue- but it's awful today too, and we have it, so why won't it be a pressure against self driving vehicles as well?

Dude. Imagine how mad the horse poop shovelers were when cars came along!

That's you right now.

I'd wager that in some dense urban areas during congestion, it may be literally impossible to cross an intersection without breaking a law. We have a "blocking the box" law in Seattle. You know what the issue is?

Yes.

The issue is you keep citing a law you haven't read and don't understand.


Let me help!

11.50.070 - Obstructing traffic at traffic-control signals.
No driver shall enter an intersection or a marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is operating without obstructing the passage of other vehicles or pedestrians, notwithstanding any traffic-control signal indication to proceed. (UVC 11-1112-1971)

So again, if there's room for your car (and any lead car) on the other side, you can go- even if the lead car isn't yet "clear" of the intersection.

If someone legally turns right on red in front of you, they can actually take up the space you were going to use, and now they're out of the intersection, and you're stuck in it. Law broken.

Washington State law requires them to have come to a complete stop before making a right on red, and further requires them to:

Vehicle operators planning to make such turns shall remain stopped to allow other vehicles lawfully within or approaching the intersection control area to complete their movements.

So if he cuts you off the grab the last space when you've already begun your cross, he broke the law, not you.

And guess what? Your Tesla has it on video

Handy huh?

I want the self driving future as much as anyone

Seems kind of the opposite, being honest.[/QUOTE]

 

[gearchruncher]

Got it. There will be zero issues with self driving cars obeying all laws on the books in every single jurisdiction through which they travel, and all other drivers on the road will thank them for their service, traffic cops will quit their jobs with joy and hugs, everyone on the road will think it's awesome that owners of self driving cars go "I don't care if I'm going slow, my time is SO VALUABLE and I'M SAVING IT BY WORKING" and there will be no interesting, unintended consequences.

 

[dckiwi]

Got it. There will be zero issues with self driving cars obeying all laws on the books in every single jurisdiction through which they travel, and all other drivers on the road will thank them for their service, traffic cops will quit their jobs with joy and hugs, everyone on the road will think it's awesome that owners of self driving cars go "I don't care if I'm going slow, my time is SO VALUABLE and I'M SAVING IT BY WORKING" and there will be no interesting, unintended consequences.

This is actually a really fascinating issue.

We live in this strange world today where most people disobey many traffic laws on a regular basis, and as a society we're fine with that. In fact, we all know that police are very selective about enforcing any of these laws (coming to a complete stop before a turn on red, going 5-10 miles an hour over the speed limit on most roads, etc.). In fact, we know that if you followed every traffic regulation when driving, you would confuse and annoy most of the drivers around you, including even the police!

I think there are two options here:

1) Autonomous vehicles take a similar approach to humans. We already see this with FSD - there is a feature flag called 'California stop' that, if enabled, will result in the car rolling slowly (rather than stopping) at a stop sign if no other cars are present. This is technically illegal, but Tesla has programmed the vehicle to behave this way. They could take a similar approach with speed limits - staying reasonably close to the speed limit, but also keeping up with traffic. Of course, this approach introduces some interesting liability issues. If FSD reaches Level 4-5 and Tesla is responsible for driving, who pays your speeding ticket?

2) Once there are enough autonomous vehicles on the road slavishly following all traffic regulations, lawmakers will have to rethink these regulations. Honestly this might be a better outcome - why have rules that most people never follow, and are rarely enforced?

 

[Knightshade]

Got it. There will be zero issues with self driving cars obeying all laws on the books in every single jurisdiction through which they travel

Traffic laws are pretty simple.

So much so even 16 year old kids can pass a written exam on them in most places.

It's trivial to program a computer to know all of em.

Not sure why you think this is hard- other than you appear to have not read some of them yourself and seem to imagine they're more more complex than they actually are.

, and all other drivers on the road will thank them for their service

Why would I care what other drivers think when I'm not even driving?

I don't care what they think now

Once the car drives itself I'll be too busy enjoying all that reclaimed free time.

, traffic cops will quit their jobs with joy and hugs

More likely they'll either be reassigned to actual useful work, or police departments will get smaller, and again they'll move on to a likely more useful to everyone job than handing out traffic tickets.

But people end up having to change jobs every time there's a major technology improvement in society.

The folks who made horse whips had to find new work- doesn't mean we should've not switched to cars at all does it?

, everyone on the road will think it's awesome that owners of self driving cars go "I don't care if I'm going slow, my time is SO VALUABLE and I'M SAVING IT BY WORKING"

I can't speak for everyone on the road.

Then again- neither can you.

Realistically though- for those as can afford one- they will think it's awesome when they see someone napping while the car drives- and will likely go buy one as soon as they can.

Which means it'll help accelerate the transition to sustainable energy.

If that sounds familiar, that is literally Teslas mission statement

and there will be no interesting, unintended consequences.

There are interesting, unintended, consequences to nearly everything.

Again if all you do is waste time worrying about em you never get anything done.


We DO know there'll be lots of interesting intended consequences though.

Far lower rates of accidents and deaths for example (Also lower car insurance!)

Less gridlock since you don't have idiots blocking the box, refusing to properly zipper merge, and so on.

LOTS more free time for folks who own such vehicles.

Lower rates of drunk driving.

Greater mobility for the elderly and disabled.

The list of benefits is pretty long.


The list of downsides so far appears to be.... less traffic ticket revenue.

Boo hoo.

 

[Todd Burch]

The painted tunnels probably are art, and possibly not on drivable roads. I'm suspicious if the second is real or photoshopped too.

I was just making a point about relying on vision as the only long-range sensor. Would vision-only crash through an entirely monochrome wall too?

Since the objects in the painted image on the tunnel would have no parallax as the car approached it, it is probably possible for vision alone to determine that it's not open 3D space but instead a flat image--it would require 4D processing (XYZ + time) which FSD is capable of. The logic could track the features in the painted image and identify that their relative position is not changing and therefore rule it out as open space.

I doubt the current state of vision would be able to tell that there's a wall there, but I think it's easily within the realm of possibility, even with current hardware.

 

[valaeyron]

Traffic laws are pretty simple.

So much so even 16 year old kids can pass a written exam on them in most places.

It's trivial to program a computer to know all of em.

Not sure why you think this is hard- other than you appear to have not read some of them yourself and seem to imagine they're more more complex than they actually are.

if only passing a written exam was a true proxy for knowledge...

The folks who made horse whips had to find new work- doesn't mean we should've not switched to cars at all does it?

Just sayin’... Fleck® Premium German Whip | Dressage Extensions

 

[Knightshade]

if only passing a written exam was a true proxy for knowledge...

That's the great part- instead of a rule written by someone who understands it needing to be memorized and then understood by millions of potentially dumb randos, the rule is written by someone who understands it, then programmed to be followed by a single set of code that is tested to confirm it follows it- then just copied identically to millions of self driving cars in the fleet.

The more of them you get the more consistent driving you get, the fewer accidents, the less backed up traffic, etc...

Just sayin’... Fleck® Premium German Whip | Dressage Extensions

Sure.

There's still blacksmiths that make swords too- often incredibly nice ones.

It hasn't seemed to slow down the firearms industry much though.

 

[Two-rocks]

It hasn't seemed to slow down the firearms industry much though.

But wait, I can clean my guns while the car drives. I’m sold. Work time saved and all.

 

[JHCCAZ]

For pedestrian and bikes, it wouldn't be too difficult to have a navigation app inform interested parties about navigation intentions. Although this would likely be a small subset.

See my post on this topic a few days ago. One of great things about V2X network communication is that it can become highly effective even if only a sparse set of vehicles and/or fixed-infrastructure beacons are active. There's no great need for each pedestrian, cyclist or driven vehicle to be watching and contributing info, as long as one or a few are doing so in the vicinity. If none are, still nothing breaks; its simply back to status quo ante. What I think will happen is that 360° monitor/data beacons will be installed in increasing numbers to cover busy intersections and downtown areas, then secondary locations, and so on. Cost will come down and become a minor adder to the cost of traffic lights, street lamps and other infrastructure. Alongside this, AV cars etc. will become increasingly common and further contribute. Pedestrians, cyclists, dogs and toddlers with no comms, as well as non-V2X vehicles, road debris, you name it, will be registered and flagged to all traffic in the vicinity, whether or not they carry a beacon. But if you want maximum awareness of your presence, sure you can run a phone app,, or carry a fob or wear a smartwatch. And please wear reflective clothing also.

(BTW, could all this be abused as a tyrannical Big-Brother state surveillance apparatus?​

Yes.​

And will be.​

In the name of Public Safety and the Children, as ever.​

But that is already the case and would in no way be averted by opposing adoption of V2X.)​

Bottom line, don't accept the logic that there's some big problem unless everyone is transmitting.

 

[NHK X]

One other improvement Tesla can do is to change over to stereo vision (they have already hinted at that - saying they can find the distance by using stereo vision of the front two cameras). Ofcourse, color blind people - as well as one eyed, drive fairly well - but stereo vision would add to the accuracy.

In the above cases, my guess is we can make out those are walls because of stereo vision.

Even for humans stereo vision (depth perception) really is only useful for near/close vision. At distance, we are using monocular cues like relative image size, shadows ect.. not stereo vision. That isn't to say that having two eyes isn't helpful, things like binocular summation does improve overall vision. But its different from depth perception. We would need eyes very very wide apart to have effect on depth perception at distance.

Teslas have their cameras pretty close together, so don't see much use in depth perception, more likely just redundancy. I did read a paper a while back where they placed cameras at far ends of the vehicle to gain some stereo depth perception.

 

[JHCCAZ]

...It will need to obey every law. Speed, waiting at stop signs for X seconds, stopping for yellow lights, only moving left to pass, turn signals, etc. It's going to drive quite a bit differently than human drivers...

I think this is not at all how Tesla FSD is developing. California rolling stops, corner-cutting left turns, libertarian settings for max speed and various default or user-selectable levels of high-g maneuvering.

Some of these behaviors are arguably just style and not really unsafe under watchful machine control, but others range from impolite to confusing to dangerously reckless. I've said a number of times that the FSD core driving behavior was apparently learned from alpha testers / Tesla employees who really aren't very good drivers. I mean not very smart, smooth, safe or realistically predictive/defensive.

I don't just mean imperfect to the sourpuss Driver's Ed instructor, and I don't concur that angelic purity will be or should be the goal. I think the goal is for the car (eventually self-organizing clusters of cars) to predict, be predictable and avert driving traps that are unrecoverable or require unpredictably abrupt recovery. A trusty and smooth chaffeur, not a wacko taxi driver who scares everyone even though he always seems to just squeeze through the gap.