Autonomous Car Progress

[Knightshade]

My simple question would be is FSD beta the beta version of FSD robotaxi software?

And the simple answer is no.

Tesla literally says that in the CA DMV emails.

Explicitly.

As you've repeatedly been told.

 

[Daniel in SD]

And the simple answer is no.

Tesla literally says that in the CA DMV emails.

Explicitly.

As you've repeatedly been told.

We could agree to disagree if you didn’t keep making points that I have already addressed. I do not agree with this interpretation of the SAE levels, that the progression from L2 to L3+ testing is dependent on disengagement rates.

To really prove production design intent we would need to see internal communications.

 

[Knightshade]

To really prove production design intent we would need to see internal communications.

You mean like from Tesla themselves?

Which we have. In the DMV emails.

Where they state FSDb is an L2 product and intended to remain one because it does not have sufficient OEDR capability to do more, and is not intended to ever have more

And where they tell you their intent is to develop a future product that will operate higher than L2, but FSDb is not it.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Which we have. In the DMV emails.

If by internal communications you mean external communications, I guess we do.

 

[Knightshade]

we do not expect significant enhancements in OEDRor other changes to the feature that would shift the responsibility for the entire DDT to the system. As such, a final release of City Streets will continue to be an SAE Level 2, advanced driver-assistance feature

City streets was the internal name for FSDb (and still is in some of the code last I knew-- and they mention that in the emails as well)

It's not that the features to be L3+ aren't "good enough yet". They do not exist (and OEDR capable of >L2) in the product and are not intended to ever exist in that product

The design intent of FSDb is L2. Including in the final product.

L3+ will be another, different, yet-to-be-developed product.

It may well leverage a lot of FSDbs code of course, but it is not FSDb, which is, explicitly and by design intent, L2 only when final.

it's flat out baffling people are still confused about this years after Tesla was clear about this.

If by internal communications you mean external communications, I guess we do.

I mean non-public. Those emails only came to light due to the crazy dude who had the lawsuit with Tesla filing FOI requests with the CA government.

 

[diplomat33]

Looks like another Cruise stall. And we can see video of a guy attacking the Cruise AV:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1630803319294922752

Cruise claims that the cars automatically stop when there is contact. So they are basically blaming the guy punching the car for causing the stall.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1631001292926746625

I am not sure. It looks to me like the car was stalled before the guy started punching the window. Regardless, this is vandalism. We would not be ok with someone attacking our car, it should not be ok just because the car is driverless. No matter how frustrated people might be at stalls, violence is not ok.

 

[ewoodrick]

Looks like another Cruise stall. And we can see video of a guy attacking the Cruise AV:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1630803319294922752

Cruise claims that the cars automatically stop when there is contact. So they are basically blaming the guy punching the car for causing the stall.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1631001292926746625

I am not sure. It looks to me like the car was stalled before the guy started punching the window. Regardless, this is vandalism. We would not be ok with someone attacking our car, it should not be ok just because the car is driverless. No matter how frustrated people might be at stalls, violence is not ok.

And 4 of them just happened to gather randomly in the same spot?

 

[diplomat33]

And 4 of them just happened to gather randomly in the same spot?

Presumably, they were blocked by the front Cruise that was stopped.

My take is the first Cruise stalled. A pedestrian got angry at the stall and attacked the vehicle. This caused the Cruise to go into emergency stop per protocol. Other Cruise AVs behind it stopped since the Cruise in front was stopped. Apparently, once the pedestrian got out of the way, the Cruise AV resumed driving.

 

[ewoodrick]

Presumably, they were blocked by the front Cruise that was stopped.

My take is the first Cruise stalled. A pedestrian got angry at the stall and attacked the vehicle. This caused the Cruise to go into emergency stop per protocol. Other Cruise AVs behind it stopped since the Cruise in front was stopped. Apparently, once the pedestrian got out of the way, the Cruise AV resumed driving.

And no other cars in-between? And not one decided to use the right lane?

 

[diplomat33]

And no other cars in-between? And not one decided to use the right lane?

Yeah. Don't get me wrong, attacking the AV is an act of vandalism. It is not acceptable. But I do suspect Cruise is using the vandalism to try to cover another bad stall. It certainly looks to me like another multi-car stall.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Probably

Robotaxi? Running FSD beta?

 

[ewoodrick]

View attachment 912730

Robotaxi? Running FSD beta?

Delivery truck

 

[johnmodely]

I can't believe they have been talking for 2 hours and have said absolutely nothing new...

 

[ewoodrick]

I can't believe they have been talking for 2 hours and have said absolutely nothing new...

Whereas many people may think that Tesla's reaching the end of its capabilities, this is telling me that they are still in their infancy.

And it had a good segment on FSD, confirming to me at least, that vision only isn't the problem.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Elon: “As autonomy is turned on, will be biggest asset value increase in history. “

Me: , my mood, thinking about my current car, being worth 5x more as Elon stated. So exciting that I will be able to do this with the car I own now (or more likely sell it for massive profit to someone who can use it in their robotaxi fleet).

Mood in room:

I guess the only unanswered question is whether this will be done with the current software, or a new version with different design intent. I don’t care I guess.

(For exact quote, starts at 18:50 here…not only is there great price elasticity of demand, the cars will likely only get more valuable.)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1631086498593349639

 

[stopcrazypp]

Elon: “As autonomy is turned on, will be biggest asset value increase in history. “

Me: , my mood, thinking about my current car, being worth 5x more as Elon stated. So exciting that I will be able to do this with the car I own now (or more likely sell it for massive profit to someone who can use it in their robotaxi fleet).

Mood in room:
View attachment 912799

I guess the only unanswered question is whether this will be done with the current software, or a new version with different design intent. I don’t care I guess.

(For exact quote, starts at 18:50 here…not only is there great price elasticity of demand, the cars will likely only get more valuable.)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1631086498593349639

Previous presentations people criticized for not having the disclaimer clear enough and early enough about forward looking statements, this one they put a huge disclaimer at the start:

Certain statements in this presentation, including, but not limited to, statements relating to the future development, ramp, production capacity and output rates, supply chain, demand and market growth, cost, pricing and profitability, deliveries, deployment, availability and other features and improvements and timing of existing and future Tesla products and technologies such as Model 3, Model Y, Model X, Model S, Cybertruck, Tesla Semi, Robotaxi, our next generation vehicle platform, our Autopilot, Full Self-Driving, and other vehicle software and our energy storage and solar products; statements regarding operating margin, operating profits, spending and liquidity; and statements regarding expansions, improvements and/or ramp and related timing at existing or new factories are “forward-looking statements” that are subject to risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations, and are a result of certain risks and uncertainties, actual results may differ materially from those projected. The following important factors, without limitation, could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements: uncertainties in future macroeconomic and regulatory conditions arising from the current global pandemic; the risk of delays in launching and manufacturing our products and features cost-effectively; our ability to grow our sales, delivery, installation, servicing and charging capabilities and effectively manage this growth; consumers’ demand for electric vehicles generally and our vehicles specifically; the ability of suppliers to deliver components according to schedules, prices, quality and volumes acceptable to us, and our ability to manage such components effectively; any issues with lithium-ion cells or other components manufactured at Gigafactory Nevada and Gigafactory Shanghai; our ability to ramp Gigafactory Shanghai, Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg, Gigafactory Texas and new factories in accordance with our plans; our ability to procure supply of battery cells, including through our own manufacturing; risks relating to international expansion; any failures by Tesla products to perform as expected or if product recalls occur; the risk of product liability claims; competition in the automotive and energy product markets; our ability to maintain public credibility and confidence in our long-term business prospects; our ability to manage risks relating to our various product financing programs; the status of government and economic incentives for electric vehicles and energy products; our ability to attract, hire and retain key employees and qualified personnel and ramp our installation teams; our ability to maintain the security of our information and production and product systems; our compliance with various regulations and laws applicable to our operations and products, which may evolve from time to time; risks relating to our indebtedness and financing strategies; and adverse foreign exchange movements. More information on potential factors that could affect our financial results is included from time to time in our Securities and Exchange Commission filings and reports, including the risks identified under the section captioned “Risk Factors” in our annual report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on January 31, 2023. Tesla disclaims any obligation to update information contained in these forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Tesla's Investor Day Livestream Disclaimer Basically Says Everything Could Be Bullshit

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Previous presentations people criticized for not having the disclaimer clear enough and early enough about forward looking statements, this one they put a huge disclaimer at the start:

Tesla's Investor Day Livestream Disclaimer Basically Says Everything Could Be Bullshit

Lol.
That’s kind of like saying that him saying “probably” or “there’s a chance” in his statements makes them ok.

He really should not be misleading people at this point or in any way even suggesting that existing vehicles (or upcoming vehicles for that matter!) will be Robotaxis. At any point.

It is not cool. There are also securities laws - presumably this boilerplate does not protect against any and all misrepresentations (note I am not saying he would be violating any laws here).

I mean, he is not fooling me, but that still does not make it ok!

 

[Daniel in SD]

it's flat out baffling people are still confused about this years after Tesla was clear about this.

Investor Day resolved any confusion. I am now convinced that FSD beta is the beta version of FSD driverless.
"as we improve the safety, reliability, and the comfort of our system we can then unlock driverless operations."

 

[caligula666]

Investor Day resolved any confusion. I am now convinced that FSD beta is the beta version of FSD driverless.
"as we improve the safety, reliability, and the comfort of our system we can then unlock driverless operations."

And that will run on 2016-2022 FSD cars, obviously… It is so convenient to be able to mean multiple different things when saying « FSD » One time it means robotaxis, one time it means L2, one time it means L3, it depends on what liability you face at any point in time essentially. Handy!

Personally, I don’t really care, as Elon said my 2016-2017 « FSD » car should be fully Level-5 FSD by end of 2017, that is, obviously, if those mor*n regulators get their act together, because, FSD will obviously be ready and only regulators could get in the way. In Elon in trust! We just need to patiently wait for the end of 2017 now… Elon hasn’t redefined how we count years yet, right?

 

[Knightshade]

Investor Day resolved any confusion. I am now convinced that FSD beta is the beta version of FSD driverless.
"as we improve the safety, reliability, and the comfort of our system we can then unlock driverless operations."

Seems to have made you MORE confused.

It confirms the current SW is not capable of driverless at all.

IOW- Level 2.

Some FUTURE software will be. Not what they released to everyone in NA as FSDb though.


Which of course is the same thing they said in 2020 and also mention in the recent NHTSA recall.


THAT said.... The team does seem to have no idea WTF the SAE levels even are, so that might be a problem too.... When I pulled up the bit about Ashok (the head of the Autopilot teams) testimony recently about the fact they largely faked the "self driving" video from 2016-- the one you kept pointing at.-- I came across another absolute gem direct from Tesla.

(note: while the accident the trial is about is from 2018- the actual trial is from 2023- so this is CURRENT info)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1614743058092019712

The head of the autopilot team doesn't know what an ODD is.

Which is a thing SAE requires to be defined for L3 and higher vehicles


So when you say the DESIGN INTENT is for L3 or higher- that is factualy wrong

The head of the team working on this stuff doesn't even know HOW to set an SAE design intent for >L2.


But it continues on from there!

They ask Ashok (who has been on the AP team since 2014) if he has ever seen, or is aware of, any document that sets forth an ODD for their system?

I do not recall

Again- this is the guy in charge of the team.


So no, there is no "design intent" for L3 or greater from FSDb. There can not be if there's no ODD defined, and the guy in charge of the project doesn't even know what an ODD is.


The "design intent" far as anything we've ever actually gotten regarding "internal" info from Tesla via testimony and FOI-forced-public emails is:

Require less interventions- until eventually regulators say "cool you don't need a driver because it crashes so rarely"

Which is...not how SAE levels work. At all. Nor the actual laws regulating self driving.


Honestly the more I dug for reasons you're wrong the more clown show any idea of "design intent" regarding SAE levels at Tesla has gotten.


Which the quote from yesterday only confirms



(and BTW- I'm totally open to the idea SAE levels are stupid.... but they're what everyone actually passing laws and regulations are using-- so the dude in charge of autopilot having no idea how they work is kind of a problem for their stated plans to eventually make a >L3 product- which again FSDb is not and never was intended to be.)