AP1 promised a lot of things that didn't make it, but I guess it was just about meeting you on the curb - that Audi video I guess went a bit further than that.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
AP1 promised a lot of things that didn't make it, but I guess it was just about meeting you on the curb - that Audi video I guess went a bit further than that.
I never said anyone did. What @schonelucht said, and I responded to, was cars navigating the car park by themselves... That would require Level 4 in a limited setting at minimum...
I am on the record believing Model 3 will be a success.
Put my comments in the suitable context, then. I know I do.
Agreed, that would sound like the most probable area where actual autonomy (as in responsible for driving) would make an appearance. Low-speed parking could be another, but car-park navigating is beyond that...
Timeline is unknown. I have no idea when Tesla might let you take your eyes off the road (Level 3), let alone your mind (Level 4). I doubt it is Friday, though...
Last edited:
Yes, and normally I give every person and company the benefit of the doubt. Things happen outside our plans. However, the preponderance of the evidence is that Tesla purposefully lied about their state of development of EAP/FSD in order to induce sales. Therefore, I will not extend the courtesy of appreciating some progress while they remain vastly away from their advertised features.
That's what happens when you eff over the customer, they become jaded, lose trust, and lose respect for your company and product. I'm the perfect example. Very much a Tesla and Elon Musk fan until they effed me - on purpose, for financial gain.
The thing about Audi isn't what the first release is limited to do, it is what it is a culmination of. It is the first release of Audi's self-driving car, something they've been working on for a decade. They are conservative with the setup - because unlike Tesla, they actually take legal responsibility for the car's driving - but the platform is already shown (to journalists) to be capable of much more.
The new Audi A8 will also go on sale much sooner than 7-8 months. That said, I agree it remains to be seen when its Level 3 is approved and what AP2 is capable at that time. There are no guarantees, but Audi does have a long track-record of work - in the public eye - on their platform, while Tesla has one video on the Internet.
Tesla does have a more aggressive launch strategy of course, we shall see how and when that turns into them taking responsibility for the car's driving - if ever, or at least allowing you to read a book...
The difference isn't lack of nags, it is fact that you are relieved of needing to look at the road at all - and that the system is that good, that well validated that Audi will take legal responsibility for what it does.
You too fail to realize the difference Level 3 makes. Audi will be responsible for the driving. You can read a book. Audi will pay if it crashes. The platform can already drive realiably much faster, journalists have been taken to drive it for years now, the limitations are conservative to begin with because they actually take responsibility for it.
NerdUno
Member
Quite a contrast from the Tesla AP2 approach: "Why are you whining? None of you are dead yet."
The thing about Level 3 is the legal responsibility. Even if Tesla is refusing to take legal responsibility for a crash (unlike the Germans), it is a big step from "pay attention, this is just an aid" to "go read a book, we'll give you 10 seconds of warning if we need you". Others have been meticulously working on this problem for years and years...
Can and will Tesla's super-aggressive launch approach get results faster? It isn't impossible that it will. Back in October 2016 I actually thought it might. We shall see.
Excuse me if I am a little less impressed 6+ months of AP2 later.
If Audi releases an L3 system and takes legal responsibility, Audi is putting its money where its mouth is. In the meantime, Tesla is simply running its mouth.
How about as a start Tesla take legal responsibility for damage caused by Summon? There is no legal basis to require a driver on private property. Would be nice for the car to actually navigate the driveway and park itself, and have Tesla pay for any resultant damage.
Of course, they will never do that. Even now, only 4/5 times will the car reliably and safety enter the garage if I preposition it directly in front of the opening. I can't trust it enough unsupervised, since I know at least 2/10 times I have to stop it from running into a wall.
What's the excuse for this?
How about as a start Tesla take legal responsibility for damage caused by Summon? There is no legal basis to require a driver on private property. Would be nice for the car to actually navigate the driveway and park itself, and have Tesla pay for any resultant damage.
Of course, they will never do that. Even now, only 4/5 times will the car reliably and safety enter the garage if I preposition it directly in front of the opening. I can't trust it enough unsupervised, since I know at least 2/10 times I have to stop it from running into a wall.
What's the excuse for this?
Yeah, there is actually a massive difference in the rhetoric of Tesla/Elon and Germans.
You note how Elon talks of self-driving accidents being paid from the driver's insurance and how Tesla will only have to get data to show some level of added safety above a human driver, to get approval.
The Germans and the rest of the industry are aiming such level of accuracy that they will actually take legal responsibility for what the car is doing when self-driving.
That is a big difference in approach. In addition to the conservative vs. aggressive hardware/software launch strategy, which is of course also related to the responsibility aspect...
Now, Tesla is doing things the Silicon Valley way. Is it possible it bears fruit? Of course it is. As said, around AP2 launch time I thought it well might. But events since then have shown there is also reason to doubt Tesla and their approach.
I think people are missing a key point. L3 does not require legal responsibility. Rather, in Germany, their FSD laws will require the manufacturer to specify when they are responsible and when the driver is.
In US, our negligence laws across many states already assess culpability and assign it proportionally (i.e driver was 10% at fault, manufacturer was 90% at fault). So there never will be a federal law assigning liability to a manufacturer when its in autonomous modes because those are state issues and negligence is a very well developed common law concept and even statutory overlays such as municipal or state regulations are incorporated rather than fully supplant common law principals (i.e. statutory negligence creates a prima facie case but it is not dispositive or strict liability).
Bottom line: our laws actually look at who is at fault rather than apportioning liability beforehand. So if someone does something stupid, Tesla or any other manufacturer won't be liable because they will be apportioned their fair share (which if its totally stupid on the driver should make the manufacturer 0% liable). Then again, if its like the first AP released on HW2 and the car drives you off the road all the time, the manufacturer will be held 100% liable if the driver couldn't have done anything to reduce the risk or did not breach a duty or law.
L3 is merely a designation per SAE about what the car does and what humans are still responsible for and where the fall back lies (i.e. human or machine). L3 has a short handoff period (10-15 seconds) but its far longer than AP (I've gotten instantaneously disconnected before but mostly I got around 1 second notice). I don't see how AP2 can't do that on a highway (it sees about 820ft (250m) and in the latest firmware I can verify it both placing cars in the black horizon when they are about that distance and it reacts (starts slowing down). If the vehicle is stopped, its less capable but on a highway that would be rare. AP2 seems capable of doing a lengthy road trip with few interventions. I've traveled from Chicago to upstate NY 4 times. I've had maybe 10 disconnects. Most of those were on earlier firmwares. The only 3 in my past trip which was only on 17.17.17 had 2 disconnects at Cleveland for a giant sharp 25mph turn and the other one for the entire round trip (1480miles) was because a bozo drifted into my lane at me while reaching for something on the floor of his car. Ironic because AS would have been better than him nearly sideswiping me at 75mph. I could see taking that trip again and, as long as no one is stupid in a way AP can't handle, not needing to disconnect because I think it could handle that sharp curve now in downtown Cleveland. It might comically slow down but a lot of people do that who don't want to feel any Gs. Next trip is in September so who knows what AP2 will be capable of (or not due to regression).
In US, our negligence laws across many states already assess culpability and assign it proportionally (i.e driver was 10% at fault, manufacturer was 90% at fault). So there never will be a federal law assigning liability to a manufacturer when its in autonomous modes because those are state issues and negligence is a very well developed common law concept and even statutory overlays such as municipal or state regulations are incorporated rather than fully supplant common law principals (i.e. statutory negligence creates a prima facie case but it is not dispositive or strict liability).
Bottom line: our laws actually look at who is at fault rather than apportioning liability beforehand. So if someone does something stupid, Tesla or any other manufacturer won't be liable because they will be apportioned their fair share (which if its totally stupid on the driver should make the manufacturer 0% liable). Then again, if its like the first AP released on HW2 and the car drives you off the road all the time, the manufacturer will be held 100% liable if the driver couldn't have done anything to reduce the risk or did not breach a duty or law.
L3 is merely a designation per SAE about what the car does and what humans are still responsible for and where the fall back lies (i.e. human or machine). L3 has a short handoff period (10-15 seconds) but its far longer than AP (I've gotten instantaneously disconnected before but mostly I got around 1 second notice). I don't see how AP2 can't do that on a highway (it sees about 820ft (250m) and in the latest firmware I can verify it both placing cars in the black horizon when they are about that distance and it reacts (starts slowing down). If the vehicle is stopped, its less capable but on a highway that would be rare. AP2 seems capable of doing a lengthy road trip with few interventions. I've traveled from Chicago to upstate NY 4 times. I've had maybe 10 disconnects. Most of those were on earlier firmwares. The only 3 in my past trip which was only on 17.17.17 had 2 disconnects at Cleveland for a giant sharp 25mph turn and the other one for the entire round trip (1480miles) was because a bozo drifted into my lane at me while reaching for something on the floor of his car. Ironic because AS would have been better than him nearly sideswiping me at 75mph. I could see taking that trip again and, as long as no one is stupid in a way AP can't handle, not needing to disconnect because I think it could handle that sharp curve now in downtown Cleveland. It might comically slow down but a lot of people do that who don't want to feel any Gs. Next trip is in September so who knows what AP2 will be capable of (or not due to regression).
Level 3 is actually not about nags or seeing ahead. Its about the car watching the environment and handling every possible scenario.
AP doesnt watch or react to the environment. So it runs into barriers that are on the road. Its simply lane following.
Level 3 isn't lane following.
This is a perfect example of what a lane following Level 2 system is:
While i agree that Elon will pull off coast to coast, it has already been done multiple times AND he's gonna cheat to get it done.
For example: lead car, dismissing disengagements, etc...
lunitiks
Cool James & Black Teacher
You are technically correct. However the manufacturers legal responsibility follows directly from the concept of L3 itself. I don't know about the US, but at least where I'm from it would be unthinkable to allow drivers to NOT pay attention to the environment and at the same time punish them for doing exactly that. When in L3-mode, the manufacturer will obviously be liable unless the driver somehow is at fault (she ignored the takeover prompt, deployed an electromagnetic pulse weapon in the car, etc.)
Oh, I never claimed it did. All I claimed is that there is a difference in the German's approach - they are so confident in their work, that they are taking legal responsibility for Level 3 upwards.
Tesla (Elon specifically) has been making vague comments about the owner's insurance being responsible for it when a self-driving car crashes. It is certainly possible this approach can work in the market, but it is a very different approach.
These differences are telling of the different level and approach these companies have. For me, IMO, after 6+ months of AP2 it seems actually fairly hard to envision the software update that Tesla might launch where they say you don't have to pay attention anymore. I'm not saing it isn't coming, I'm just saying I have a hard time envisioning it.
Let's put it this way: I have trust in Audi that when they say that, they have done their work to such an extent that it can be trusted. They have been at this meticulously, scientifically for years, as have the likes of Google and e.g. MobilEye as one of the suppliers. They are taking a measured, stage by stage, conservative way into market, with a clear roadmap.
I am not sure the same holds true for Tesla anytime soon, trust-wise. Their different approach to the responsibility side is not adding to that trust either... I don't know when a Level 3 Tesla might come (let alone Level 4+). I don't know, nor am I making any estimates (positive or negative). But I'm definitely not as hopeful as I was in October 2016.
IF there will be two otherwise similar systems, system A where manufacturer takes legal responsibility and system B, where manufacturer does not take responsibility, any sane customer will choose system A.
At this moment customers can only buy system B.
Perhaps to a large extent, though, that assumes customers are value or liability oriented. Not all probably are.
Also, not responding to @Matias but overall it needs to be said: it is certainly still possible Tesla changes their mind on this - or even that the Germans will. We shall see.
But the biggest thing for me is, the events of the past year are simply clouding the Level 3+ future of Tesla for me. I don't necessarily know what I thought of it before exactly, but by now I do know the visibility is very low.
I have a hard time seeing how a eyes off or mind off - i.e. one where Tesla says you don't have to look at the road - Tesla AP2 would roll out and when. Do you guys get what I mean by that? You bulls, any thoughts as to how and when you think that might happen?
Mind you, I'm not saying it won't happen. But it seems vague and potentially distant the how and when part to me.
I'm positive that in the future there will be only systems with legal responsibility like A or B sold.
A lot of "unthinkable" stuff happens here.
That being said, the system you described is exactly how the US works. It is a holistic assessment of fault. When in L3 mode, the customer has every right to expect the system to be adequately robust to handle all situations within the parameters established and provide a long enough handoff period to transition. If the system fails, I expect either a product liability lawsuit and/or a negligence lawsuit. I mean, there are myriad types of claims I'm just trying to simplify it (I could see negligent entrustment claims, I could see some really creative other stuff).
I just don't think the German model will ever be adopted into the US (manufacturer strict liability). Our courts emphatically rejected it for gun manufacturers and I think we like cars as much as guns.
- Status
Similar threads
