Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Autonomous Car Progress

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Certainly, some skepticism is healthy but beware of too much skepticism.
You can't have enough skepticism when it comes to companies. They have huge motivation to show a rosy picture - whether it is Tesla or Waymo or MobilEye - and hide anything damaging.

With individuals you have to look at the motivation and affiliations. I don't expect Karpathy to be totally transparent - even though he has left Tesla and Drago who still works for Waymo. I would trust videos from @SeattleFSD because of the videos on YouTube and lack of motivation to be untruthful. Karpathy and Drago will know how to speak so as to not lie directly but not be totally transparent or say negative things about the companies they work (or worked) for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SeattleFSD
It is also important to look at the authority of the speaker. For example, a Tesla youtuber does not have the same authority as say Andrej Karpathy or Drago Anguelov who work with ML. When Karpathy or Anguelov speak on ML, they are speaking authoritatively on the subject so we can trust what they are saying more than a random youtuber.
This is the Argument from Authority logical fallacy. A n argument or claim should be evaluated on the supporting evidence provided, not because of known (or perceived or claimed) authority on a subject.

If the person is truly an authority, then they should be able to make a convincing argument based on factual evidence, not rely on their authority. If there is no factual evidence, then whatever is claimed is just another opinion.

And, of course, we generally have no way of knowing the true credentials of any poster on this forum, which is why many ask for links to factual sources to back up positions.
 
I'm harsh on Waymo even though they actually have a fairly mature tech stack because they went all "corpo" really early on and produce all these cute, bubbly ads about their service. And it's totally dishonest toward shareholders because all AVs today (let alone many years ago when they were raising billions of $) are firmly in this "research project" phase right now... Tesla, Waymo, Cruise, everyone is. And even if years from now they solve the problem, the per-ride economics won't make any sense for many years after that.

They made this video in 2017:
After more than eight years of testing and development, we're ready to unlock the potential of fully autonomous driving technology, so we can make it easier and safer for everyone to get around.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: EVNow
They made this video in 2017:

And Waymo did deliver on what we see in that video.

I do take issue with saying everyone is in the research phase. Usually, the research phase does not involve any commercial product yet. But we are seeing commercial products now for autonomous driving. Certainly, research is still being done and AVs are still being developed but we are seeing real commercialization of AVs now. So it is more than just a research project. We are clearly moving into the commercialization phase.
 
Last edited:
This is the Argument from Authority logical fallacy. A n argument or claim should be evaluated on the supporting evidence provided, not because of known (or perceived or claimed) authority on a subject.

If the person is truly an authority, then they should be able to make a convincing argument based on factual evidence, not rely on their authority. If there is no factual evidence, then whatever is claimed is just another opinion.

And, of course, we generally have no way of knowing the true credentials of any poster on this forum, which is why many ask for links to factual sources to back up positions.

I know all about the argument from authority fallacy. And yes, we should evaluate based on evidence, not automatically accept someone's word just because they are in authority. But I think my point still stands: who do you think is more likely to tell you the truth about say how camera vision works, a ML engineer who works on the camera vision and is presenting a paper on camera vision or a random youtuber? I know I will listen to the ML engineer.

Not to get off topic but that is the problem I see in today's society. Too many people get their "news" now from randos on youtube because they were told not to trust the news authorities but the result is that they believe all kinds of lies and conspiracy theories. Now, I am not suggesting we should trust everything the mainstream news says, of course, they do have biases. We should always verify with evidence. But at the same time, when you automatically reject all evidence from any authority, you will be at risk of falling prey to misinformation and lies like we are seeing in the US today.
 
Not to get off topic but that is the problem I see in today's society. Too many people get their "news" now from randos on youtube because they were told not to trust the news authorities but the result is that they believe all kinds of lies and conspiracy theories. Now, I am not suggesting we should trust everything the mainstream news says, of course, they do have biases. We should always verify with evidence. But at the same time, when you automatically reject all evidence from any authority, you will be at risk of falling prey to misinformation and lies like we are seeing in the US today.
I'll nudge a little more OT - our biggest problem is a lack of critical thinking skills.

What is critical thinking?​

Critical thinking is a kind of thinking in which you question, analyze, interpret, evaluate and make a judgement about what you read, hear, say, or write. The term critical comes from the Greek word kritikos meaning “able to judge or discern”. Good critical thinking is about making reliable judgements based on reliable information.
Applying critical thinking does not mean being negative or focusing on faults. It means being able to clarify your thinking so that you can break down a problem or a piece of information, interpret it and use that interpretation to arrive at an informed decision or judgement (for example designing a bridge, responding to an opinion piece or understanding a political motivation).
People who apply critical thinking consistently are said to have a critical thinking mindset, but no one is born this way. These are attributes which are learnt and improved through practice and application.
In the academic context, critical thinking is most commonly associated with arguments. You might be asked to think critically about other people's arguments or create your own. To become a better critical thinker, you therefore need to learn how to:

1. Clarify your thinking purpose and context. We live in a world oversaturated with information of varying quality and relevance. To be an effective critical thinker, you need to focus on your own purpose and context, so that you can avoid information overload and keep track of your own line of thinking.

2. Question your sources. Not all sources of information are equally credible, accurate or relevant. Questioning your sources will sharpen your thinking, help you select the most appropriate information and prepare the ground for further analysis and evaluation.

3. Identify arguments. Arguments can be found everywhere. Whenever somebody is trying to show that something is true, or persuade somebody else to agree with them, you can identify an argument. As a student, you will find that the ability to identify arguments is one of the most useful critical thinking skills.

4. Analyse sources and arguments. To analyse something means to examine it in detail, explain and interpret it. For the purposes of critical thinking you need to be able to examine sources, arguments, theories and processes, and explain how they work. Good analysis also involves examining, interpreting and explaining the interaction of evidence, reasoning, assumptions, methodologies, claims and arguments.

5. Evaluate the arguments of others. Evaluation should consider and explain the relative strengths and weaknesses of your sources and the arguments they present. You need to be able to evaluate arguments, the claims that support those arguments, the evidence that supports those claims and the reasoning that connects them all.

6. Create your own arguments. Creating arguments consists of bringing together evidence, reasoning and claims and developing your own main claim. Creating arguments is also called synthesis, which means “placing things together.” When you create arguments, you bring together the insights from your analysis and evaluation. You also consider how your critical thinking might apply in the broader context, and what new insights and perspectives it brings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: diplomat33
I'll nudge a little more OT - our biggest problem is a lack of critical thinking skills.

What is critical thinking?​

Critical thinking is a kind of thinking in which you question, analyze, interpret, evaluate and make a judgement about what you read, hear, say, or write. The term critical comes from the Greek word kritikos meaning “able to judge or discern”. Good critical thinking is about making reliable judgements based on reliable information.
Applying critical thinking does not mean being negative or focusing on faults. It means being able to clarify your thinking so that you can break down a problem or a piece of information, interpret it and use that interpretation to arrive at an informed decision or judgement (for example designing a bridge, responding to an opinion piece or understanding a political motivation).
People who apply critical thinking consistently are said to have a critical thinking mindset, but no one is born this way. These are attributes which are learnt and improved through practice and application.
In the academic context, critical thinking is most commonly associated with arguments. You might be asked to think critically about other people's arguments or create your own. To become a better critical thinker, you therefore need to learn how to:

1. Clarify your thinking purpose and context. We live in a world oversaturated with information of varying quality and relevance. To be an effective critical thinker, you need to focus on your own purpose and context, so that you can avoid information overload and keep track of your own line of thinking.

2. Question your sources. Not all sources of information are equally credible, accurate or relevant. Questioning your sources will sharpen your thinking, help you select the most appropriate information and prepare the ground for further analysis and evaluation.

3. Identify arguments. Arguments can be found everywhere. Whenever somebody is trying to show that something is true, or persuade somebody else to agree with them, you can identify an argument. As a student, you will find that the ability to identify arguments is one of the most useful critical thinking skills.

4. Analyse sources and arguments. To analyse something means to examine it in detail, explain and interpret it. For the purposes of critical thinking you need to be able to examine sources, arguments, theories and processes, and explain how they work. Good analysis also involves examining, interpreting and explaining the interaction of evidence, reasoning, assumptions, methodologies, claims and arguments.

5. Evaluate the arguments of others. Evaluation should consider and explain the relative strengths and weaknesses of your sources and the arguments they present. You need to be able to evaluate arguments, the claims that support those arguments, the evidence that supports those claims and the reasoning that connects them all.

6. Create your own arguments. Creating arguments consists of bringing together evidence, reasoning and claims and developing your own main claim. Creating arguments is also called synthesis, which means “placing things together.” When you create arguments, you bring together the insights from your analysis and evaluation. You also consider how your critical thinking might apply in the broader context, and what new insights and perspectives it brings.

100% agree. There is a huge lack of critical thinking skills. Developing critical thinking skills is hard. It is easier to just trust something rather than think critically. But it has resulted in a huge societal polarization where people just trust whatever source already fits their biases. As a result, we are seeing a breakdown in truth itself because we cannot even agree on what is true anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dewg
I know all about the argument from authority fallacy. And yes, we should evaluate based on evidence, not automatically accept someone's word just because they are in authority. But I think my point still stands: who do you think is more likely to tell you the truth about say how camera vision works, a ML engineer who works on the camera vision and is presenting a paper on camera vision or a random youtuber? I know I will listen to the ML engineer.

Not to get off topic but that is the problem I see in today's society. Too many people get their "news" now from randos on youtube because they were told not to trust the news authorities but the result is that they believe all kinds of lies and conspiracy theories. Now, I am not suggesting we should trust everything the mainstream news says, of course, they do have biases. We should always verify with evidence. But at the same time, when you automatically reject all evidence from any authority, you will be at risk of falling prey to misinformation and lies like we are seeing in the US today.
If you knew all about the argument from authority fallacy, then you wouldn't have stated that you should look at the authority of the speaker.

No wonder this thread has devolved into little more than press releases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EVNow
If you knew all about the argument from authority fallacy, then you wouldn't have stated that you should look at the authority of the speaker.

I said we should consider the authority of the speaker, yes. If you are looking for information about say camera vision, it definitely matters if the speaker is a ML engineer who works on camera vision or a lay person. To argue that it does not matter who the speaker is dumb. That does not mean we automatically accept everything they say as truth because they are an authority. So no, I am not making an argument from authority.

No wonder this thread has devolved into little more than press releases.

Uh, I share some press releases because they are news. And you should go to the primary source which will be the press release.

Tesla fans: "don't tell us any real news about what companies are doing, just show us cherry picked FSD beta videos". Got it.
 
I said we should consider the authority of the speaker, yes. If you are looking for information about say camera vision, it definitely matters if the speaker is a ML engineer who works on camera vision or a lay person. To argue that it does not matter who the speaker is dumb. That does not mean we automatically accept everything they say as truth because they are an authority. So no, I am not making an argument from authority.



Uh, I share some press releases because they are news. And you should go to the primary source which will be the press release.

Tesla fans: "don't tell us any real news about what companies are doing, just show us cherry picked FSD beta videos". Got it.
Press releases are no more news than Elon Musk's tweets.
 
Press releases are no more news than Elon Musk's tweets.

I disagree. Press releases are official corporate statements that are vetted by legal and public relations of all companies involved. They usually involve a major announcement like a business deal, expansion, new product etc... They actually carry a lot of weight since there can be legal consequences if the press release makes false statements. Elon's tweets are public statements by the CEO. They are definitely not vetted by legal or public relations. They are usually just his personal musings.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Press releases are official corporate statements that are vetted by legal and public relations of all companies involved. They usually involve a major announcement like a business deal, expansion, new product etc... They actually carry a lot of weight since there can be legal consequences if the press release makes false statements. Elon's tweets are public statements by the CEO. They are definitely not vetted by legal or public relations. They are usually just his personal musings.
And, just like that, we're back to the argument from authority fallacy.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: EVNow
No we are not. What are you talking about?! I simply stated the fact that press releases are official corporate statements. Moreover, press releases often have important information. To automatically dismiss all press releases is ridiculous.
You implied that you could trust corporate statements because they 'carry weight' and there could be consequences if they were incorrect. Based on that, we would conclude that Oxycontin was not habit forming because Perdue Pharma corporation said it wasn't. After all, there would be consequences if they lied. And, there certainly were. But Perdue lied anyway.

Nikola released a video of their purported electric semi truck cruising down the road under it's own power. Had they faked the video, their could be consequences. Of course, we all know that the video was faked and that the truck was simply coasting downhill.

Tesla released a compiled video claiming that their car could drive autonomously. There could be consequences if the video was faked. Turns out, it was faked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EVNow
You implied that you could trust corporate statements because they 'carry weight' and there could be consequences if they were incorrect. Based on that, we would conclude that Oxycontin was not habit forming because Perdue Pharma corporation said it wasn't. After all, there would be consequences if they lied. And, there certainly were. But Perdue lied anyway.
Far too many Americans take big corporations to be trustworthy… even though again and again they are caught lying.

How many times has Facebook lied about privacy?

ps: Other part of the coin is to claim someone is a fraud with little proof. One’s favorite company can make no mistake and a “rival” company is a fraud ;) One’s favorite person is a “recognized expert” and the other is a shill.
 
And Waymo did deliver on what we see in that video.

I do take issue with saying everyone is in the research phase. Usually, the research phase does not involve any commercial product yet. But we are seeing commercial products now for autonomous driving. Certainly, research is still being done and AVs are still being developed but we are seeing real commercialization of AVs now. So it is more than just a research project. We are clearly moving into the commercialization phase.
What Waymo has is not a commercial product - even though they may be charging a fee. They don’t even recover 1% of their costs and they would be bankrupt if Monopoly money was not being poured into them from 10 years.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: diplomat33
What Waymo has is not a commercial product - even though they may be charging a fee. They don’t even recover 1% of their costs and they would be bankrupt if Monopoly money was not being poured into them from 10 years.

A commercial product is anything you sell to the public. So yes, it is a commercial product. Just because you think it is an unsuccessful product, does not make it less of a commercial product. And using derogatory terms like "monopoly money" that just reveals your bias.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
Reactions: EVNow
You implied that you could trust corporate statements because they 'carry weight' and there could be consequences if they were incorrect.

No. Carrying weight means that it is important and influential. I think that is fair description of press releases. They are often important and influence things. But being important and influential does not automatically mean you trust everything.

carry weight​

idiom


Synonyms of carry weight
: to be important or meaningful especially in influencing others.


Based on that, we would conclude that Oxycontin was not habit forming because Perdue Pharma corporation said it wasn't. After all, there would be consequences if they lied. And, there certainly were. But Perdue lied anyway.

Nikola released a video of their purported electric semi truck cruising down the road under it's own power. Had they faked the video, their could be consequences. Of course, we all know that the video was faked and that the truck was simply coasting downhill.

Tesla released a compiled video claiming that their car could drive autonomously. There could be consequences if the video was faked. Turns out, it was faked.

Those videos were not press releases. But yes, there can still be consequences when they are faked. Sadly, corporations sometimes get away with lying but that does not mean that legal consequences are not still possible. Elizabeth Holmes is going to prison for her lies and fraud.
 
A commercial product is anything you sell to the public. So yes, it is a commercial product. Just because you think it is an unsuccessful product, does not make it less of a commercial product. And using derogatory terms like "monopoly money" that just reveals your bias.
The fact that you don’t even recognize Google is using its monopolistic power to proper up Waymo shows your uncritical support for Waymo.

I don’t view FSD Beta as commercial either.
 
The fact that you don’t even recognize Google is using its monopolistic power to proper up Waymo shows your uncritical support for Waymo.

First, my support of Waymo is not uncritical. I am critical of Waymo for not having a strategy for consumer cars.

Second, we've discussed this before. Google started a self-driving project and then when they felt it was ready to be more than a research project, they let them incorporate as a distinct child company called Waymo. I bet you would have no issue if Tesla split the AP/FSD team into a child company and gave them billions of funding. And there is nothing illegal about a company making a lot of money in one area and then using that money in a different area. Companies diversify all the time. You are just jealous that Google is a trillion dollar company that can afford to pour billions into self-driving when a lot other companies can't. But don't hate Google for being successful.

I don’t view FSD Beta as commercial either.

I would agree. FSD Beta is not a commercial product. But the FSD package on the order page is, since people can buy it. And Waymo is a commercial product since the public can pay to use the service.
 
Last edited: