Firmware 9 in August will start rolling out full self-driving features!!!

[rnortman]

You are correct about levels classification but what I am saying is that any car that can drive itself without the driver paying attention is demonstrating self-driving behavior even if it is not classified as a self-driving car. In other words, any car that can drive itself without any human intervention or paying attention is in practice indistinguishable from a self-driving car even if it is not classified as one.

(emphasis mine)

You are going back and forth between the car being able to drive itself without intervention and being able to drive itself without the human paying attention as if these are broadly comparable. There is a vast difference between these things. In the former, if manages to make a trip once or twice without intervention, you can claim "it drove itself from A to B". In the latter, it needs to make the trip safely every time without intervention -- then you can say "it drives itself from A to B". This is the difference between L2 and L3+. It has nothing to do with capabilities.

It is abundantly clear that what Tesla implied-promised was an L4 or even L5 system -- not only that the driver would not have to pay attention, but that there would not have to be a driver at all (e.g., Tesla Network). Now they are rebranding it as an L2 system (maybe L3 for limited periods on the highway in ideal conditions), and you are defending this. Or at least you're saying "well it would be cool enough, wouldn't it?"

So I agree that EAP is a pretty good L2 system already, and probably will continue to get somewhat better. That's beside the point -- rebranding FSD as an L2 system is dishonest and justifies everything the critics have been saying all along -- since 2016 and earlier -- that Tesla was lying and would not be able to make good on their promises. For that matter, EAP was sold as an L3 system -- On-Ramp to Off-Ramp -- and they have clearly given up on that. So basically they're rebranding FSD as being not even what EAP was promised to be -- because even the original EAP promises are impossible on this hardware -- just like the more level-headed people here been saying all along.

And yet, some people still continue to defend their savior St. Musk in his epic battle against the hordes of imaginary regulators.

 

[Az_Rael]

When Elon talks about the future and implies there will be truly driverless operations, he's talking about future generations of vehicles, not current vehicles. He is selfish and egotistical though so he's not coming right out and saying it, but rather letting current owners and prospective buyers continue to believe that he's talking about their cars. In his mind he justifies all this because he's saving the planet by "accelerating the advent of sustainable transportation" or whatever -- accelerating it with our money, but not giving us a direct return on our investment. No, he keeps the return for himself and his shareholders. He knows that if he comes clean now it means huge legal liability and reduced sales, and it would bankrupt Tesla in short order.

This x100. If you go back and look at the original software 7.x announcement with summon it talks about advance summon coming coming to “your Tesla” back then. Who knew then that the Tesla you were buying with that AP wasn’t the Tesla being talked about in the announcement.

So the Tesla Network car is going to be the same. Sure, someday your Tesla will do all those things, it just will be your next Tesla not the one you bought today.

 

[charliepmayer]

Seems the forum is getting a bit bogged down in academic arguments involving semantics and 25 mph FSD systems mounted to cars that look like they have cancerous growths and parasites clinging to them.

Anybody here have an opinion (ha!) on how any FSD system would handle the following situations? (all real - not hypothetical)
(My urban friends might have difficulty visualizing the scenarios below - but anyone who drives I-10 should be able to relate.)

*75 mph on the interstate - suspension on "low" - might be some traffic next to you - the semi in front of you straddles a dead deer.
*70 mph on the interstate - traffic all around you - mattress blows off the back of a pickup and it is drifting into your lane.
*80 mph at night on the interstate - dark asphalt - you see a tire carcass in your lane - 'way too close.
*80 mph at night on the interstate - javelina decides to cross in front of you - he's not going to make it.
*75 mph on the interstate - an alligator decides to mosey across the road into your lane - you can't believe it - but there he is!

My point is: no matter if it's L2 or a future L20 - or who makes the FSD system - driver attention will always be required.
Arguments about eye tracking, steering wheel jiggling, or what is L2 vs Lxxx are just mental masturbation.

Not saying there's anything wrong with mental masturbation, but we should recognize it for what it is.

 

[diplomat33]

(emphasis mine)

You are going back and forth between the car being able to drive itself without intervention and being able to drive itself without the human paying attention as if these are broadly comparable. There is a vast difference between these things. In the former, if manages to make a trip once or twice without intervention, you can claim "it drove itself from A to B". In the latter, it needs to make the trip safely every time without intervention -- then you can say "it drives itself from A to B". This is the difference between L2 and L3+. It has nothing to do with capabilities.

Capability and reliability do play a role though. If the car can drive itself from A to B say 1,000 times with only 1 total disengagement you might not need to intervene very often but you would want to still pay attention. But if the car can drive from A to B say 100,000 times with 0 disengagements, you could stop paying attention at least on that one trusted path because the car has proven itself.

I like what Musk said about adding more 9's in the reliability %. Ultimately, the more 9's you have,the closer your car gets to being good enough for a certain level of autonomy. Enough 9's and you eventually are good enough for L4.

And I think Tesla has the right approach. Get the features in (like reading stop signs, obeying trafflic lights, intersections, etc) and then work to improve reliability. When the reliability is low, you need to keep it as a L2 system because it would be unsafe for the driver not to pay attention. But as the reliability increases, when the system gets so good that it can reliably handle a trip from A to B consistently with no disengagements, then you reach the point where it is good enough that you can safely reduce driver engagement and thereby increase the levels to L3, L4 and eventually L5.

It is abundantly clear that what Tesla implied-promised was an L4 or even L5 system -- not only that the driver would not have to pay attention, but that there would not have to be a driver at all (e.g., Tesla Network). Now they are rebranding it as an L2 system (maybe L3 for limited periods on the highway in ideal conditions), and you are defending this. Or at least you're saying "well it would be cool enough, wouldn't it?"

What I am defending is Tesla releasing a "FSD" package where the car can drive from A to B with no driver intervention which would fulfill a major promise that Tesla made on the FSD page. And the quote from Musk where he says that the development cars can do that and they are working to get the reliability up to say 99.999% would seem to imply that "driving from A to B with no driver intervention" is Tesla's goal for FSD. What's wrong with Tesla doing that?

And "driving from A to B with no driver intervention" meets my personal expectation for "FSD". That is why I would be happy if Tesla achieved that.

And who's to say that Tesla's "FSD" package won't become L4 in the future after more updates? Tesla could release "FSD" as L2 to start and then with future updates, eventually raise it to L4.

And remember that L2 simply means that the driver needs to pay attention and be engaged. A car could be L2 and still be very capable in terms of driving from A to B with no disengagements. So a L2 "FSD" would not necessarily be a bad system.

I feel like you are jumping the gun here. We don't even have "FSD" yet to judge and yet it seems you are already concluding that Tesla has rebranded "FSD" as L2 and will therefore break its promises and prove that L4 "FSD" was a lie from the start.

My point is simply this: if we get a "FSD" update that allows the car to be very capable at driving from A to B with no disengagements and it gets better with updates and eventually becomes L4, what's wrong with that? Why fight over whether the initial release of "FSD" was not L4? Ultimately, I think we all want "FSD" where the car can drive from A to B so reliably that we don't even need to pay attention and that is what Tesla is shooting for.

For that matter, EAP was sold as an L3 system -- On-Ramp to Off-Ramp -- and they have clearly given up on that.

Really? When has Tesla given up on NOA being L3? I don't see that.

 

[Interferon]

Not saying there's anything wrong with mental masturbation, but we should recognize it for what it is.

Says the man with the Playboy bunny in his avatar.

 

[am_dmd]

So Tesla has their own definition of FSD. If your Tesla can drive from point A to point B with no driver intervention it's FSD? So driver still has to be there? I thought 2016 promo video said driver is only there for illustration purposes.
So you can put your MIL in the back seat and say there is 99.999999..% she will get to her destination but just in case...told ya

 

[Matias]

It is suprising, that AP 2.5 after more than two years is still approximately at the same level as AP1. Surprising, because it has 40 times the calculation capacity of the AP1 and eight vs. one camera.

My 2015 AP1 car can do all this car does (including driving with line markings covered with snow, although you can’t enable it if lines are missing, but if there first are lines and they later disappear, AP1 can continue without lines. I don’t know if it is based on gps or MobileEye)

https://electrek.co/2019/01/28/tesla-autopilot-snow-storm/

 

[rnortman]

Seems the forum is getting a bit bogged down in academic arguments involving semantics and 25 mph FSD systems mounted to cars that look like they have cancerous growths and parasites clinging to them.

Anybody here have an opinion (ha!) on how any FSD system would handle the following situations? (all real - not hypothetical)
(My urban friends might have difficulty visualizing the scenarios below - but anyone who drives I-10 should be able to relate.)

*75 mph on the interstate - suspension on "low" - might be some traffic next to you - the semi in front of you straddles a dead deer.
*70 mph on the interstate - traffic all around you - mattress blows off the back of a pickup and it is drifting into your lane.
*80 mph at night on the interstate - dark asphalt - you see a tire carcass in your lane - 'way too close.
*80 mph at night on the interstate - javelina decides to cross in front of you - he's not going to make it.
*75 mph on the interstate - an alligator decides to mosey across the road into your lane - you can't believe it - but there he is!

My point is: no matter if it's L2 or a future L20 - or who makes the FSD system - driver attention will always be required.
Arguments about eye tracking, steering wheel jiggling, or what is L2 vs Lxxx are just mental masturbation.

Not saying there's anything wrong with mental masturbation, but we should recognize it for what it is.

All of your examples need to be handled in some way by any L3+ system. To qualify as L5 the autonomous system must handle them at least as well as a qualified human driver would -- which in many of these cases means you would still have an accident. Humans aren't perfect either.

You seem to be implying that no automated driving system will ever be able to handle those situations as well as or better than a human driver would? If that is your position then we'll have to agree to disagree. The current state of the art isn't there yet (and no, Tesla is not the current state of the art, not by a long shot), but it will improve over time until it is as good as or better than a typical human in all of those situations.

I had a situation where a ladder fell off the truck in front of me on the highway, at night. I set my tires on either side of the ladder and tore up my underbody, needed a tow and repairs. Exactly the same thing might happen with a self-driving system, but on the other hand it might be able to do better due to its 360-degree view of the world -- I had no time to turn my head to see if it was safe to swerve, but a computer would not need to do that. It would already know if it was safe to swerve out of the lane and might be able to make that decision in a millisecond.

 

[diplomat33]

So Tesla has their own definition of FSD. If your Tesla can drive from point A to point B with no driver intervention it's FSD? So driver still has to be there? I thought 2016 promo video said driver is only there for illustration purposes.

Yes, it appears that Musk may have a different definition of FSD based on the earnings call quote. The conventional definition of FSD is based on driver engagement, not capability per se. So FSD basically means L4/5 autonomy. Musk appears to be defining FSD the other way, based on capability, not driver engagement. So he is taking the expression "full self driving" more literally. If the car can completely drive itself without driver intervention then it is fully self-driving in a literal sense. So based on this way of looking at, yes, driving from A to B with no driver intervention would be considered FSD. Based on this definition, a L2 system could be "FSD" as well if it was good enough to drive from A to B without any driver intervention. But a L4 system would also meet that definition of FSD as well. So the driver would not necessarily need to be present, no. It would depend on how good the system was. So the 2016 video was not technically wrong.

Basically, "drive from A to B with no driver intervention" could fall under L2 or L4, hence the confusion.

 

[boonedocks]

Last 30 posts........Look what happens to the mood and conversation when the last software update was 6 weeks ago(for most of us) and the last meaningful one was moooonths ago.

Yes, it appears that Musk may have a different definition of FSD based on the earnings call quote. The conventional definition of FSD is based on driver engagement, not capability per se. So FSD basically means L4/5 autonomy. Musk appears to be defining FSD the other way, based on capability, not driver engagement. So he is taking the expression "full self driving" more literally. If the car can completely drive itself without driver intervention then it is fully self-driving in a literal sense. So based on this way of looking at, yes, driving from A to B with no driver intervention would be considered FSD. Based on this definition, a L2 system could be "FSD" as well if it was good enough to drive from A to B without any driver intervention. But a L4 system would also meet that definition of FSD as well. So the driver would not necessarily need to be present, no. It would depend on how good the system was. So the 2016 video was not technically wrong.

Basically, "drive from A to B with no driver intervention" could fall under L2 or L4, hence the confusion.

How does that saying go.....Repeat something (untruths) enough and it will become reality (truths) to those listening. Using this bastardized definition of FSD I guess I will get my pre-paid FSD in my lifetime. WTF

 

[diplomat33]

How does that saying go.....Repeat something (untruths) enough and it will become reality (truths) to those listening. Using this bastardized definition of FSD I guess I will get my pre-paid FSD in my lifetime. WTF

Well do you want your car to drive itself from A to B without you touching the wheel?

Honestly, in practical layman's terms, I dont think it is all that bad a definition of self-driving. It does get the point across of what the car can do and it does encompass L4 autonomy also. It is just not exclusive to L4.

 

[boonedocks]

Well do you want your car to drive itself from A to B without you touching the wheel?

Honestly, in practical layman's terms, I dont think it is all that bad a definition of self-driving. It does get the point across of what the car can do and it does encompass L4 autonomy also. It is just not exclusive to L4.

What I want is what was advertised and demoed in a video and what I actually paid for. What I will get is looking more and more like a, let us say, 10% of that. I wonder if I will get my HW3 AND a 90% refund at the same time.

 

[diplomat33]

What I want is what was advertised and demoed in a video and what I actually paid for. What I will get is looking more and more like a, let us say, 10% of that. I wonder if I will get my HW3 AND a 90% refund at the same time.

You are exaggerating. The definition "drives from A to B without driver intervention" is completely consistent with the 2016 video. You can still get what you were promised and what you paid for. There is nothing to suggest that Tesla won't deliver that.

 

[boonedocks]

You are exaggerating. The definition "drives from A to B without driver intervention" is completely consistent with the 2016 video. You can still get what you were promised and what you paid for. There is nothing to suggest that Tesla won't deliver that.

Based on everything that has/is coming out and the way definitions are being "dumbed down", and still being the Tesla fanboy I am, my comfort level of getting what I paid for ie that video, is -0-

 

[Bladerskb]

Yes, it appears that Musk may have a different definition of FSD based on the earnings call quote. The conventional definition of FSD is based on driver engagement, not capability per se. So FSD basically means L4/5 autonomy. Musk appears to be defining FSD the other way, based on capability, not driver engagement. So he is taking the expression "full self driving" more literally. If the car can completely drive itself without driver intervention then it is fully self-driving in a literal sense. So based on this way of looking at, yes, driving from A to B with no driver intervention would be considered FSD. Based on this definition, a L2 system could be "FSD" as well if it was good enough to drive from A to B without any driver intervention. But a L4 system would also meet that definition of FSD as well. So the driver would not necessarily need to be present, no. It would depend on how good the system was. So the 2016 video was not technically wrong.

Basically, "drive from A to B with no driver intervention" could fall under L2 or L4, hence the confusion.

You are exaggerating. The definition "drives from A to B without driver intervention" is completely consistent with the 2016 video. You can still get what you were promised and what you paid for. There is nothing to suggest that Tesla won't deliver that.

Just listen to Elon Musk himself, from his Autopilot 2.0 announcement in October 2016: Transcript: Elon Musk's Autopilot 2.0 Conference Call.

“Basic news is that all cars exiting the factory have hardware necessary for Level 5 Autonomy so that’s in terms of cameras, compute power, it’s in every car we make on the order 2,000 cars a week are shipping now with Level 5 literally meaning hardware capable of full self-driving for driver-less capability.”

You are embarrassing yourself right now.

 

[ucmndd]

Diplomat vs Bladerskb is an amazing exhibition of fully-blind Church of Elon fundamentalist vs. obvious troll protecting corporate/financial interests through FUD.

 

[diplomat33]

Diplomat vs Bladerskb is an amazing exhibition of fully-blind Church of Elon fundamentalist vs. obvious troll protecting corporate/financial interests through FUD.

I am not a "fully blind church of Elon fundamentalist". I have admitted when Musk failed to deliver on a timeline or promise. I am on record many times, saying that AP2 would not be L5. Heck, just a few posts ago, I said that I would be happy just to get "drive from A to B without driver intervention" even if it was not FSD. But I am not on the totally opposite side either. I don't subscribe to the anti-Tesla "FSD is a big scam/Musk is a con artist" side either.

 

[CK_Stuggi]

Please stop confusing the term "FULL self driving” (which to any sane person means autonomous) with an Interpretation of what Musk may mean.
With a lot of understanding, I'll grant an intervention-free highway drive the label "supervised self-driving".
Full self driving means the vehicle can operate autonomously even without a driver on board ("summon across the country").
Anything else is not FSD. I'll even give a free pass if it only works on hard surface roads, because we'll never get autonomous cars to handle all the world's goat trail cabin driveways.

But that's not what's the subject here. The subject is Elon constantly overpromising and underdelivering. And not being honest about it, or at least unable to properly voice a difference in his guesses and knowledgeable predictions as the CEO.

The one and only acceptable reasoning as to why we haven't seen any FSD features yet is that this version, probably in it's iteration V9.9 will bring the first feature, just to make good on the promise V9 having started the rollout.
Don't forget some feature was to be coming "probably in 8.3", which never materialized.

 

[Bladerskb]

@rnortman @boonedocks @am_dmd

What @diplomat33 is doing & saying right now is what i said would happen almost 3 years ago.
First its, Yes Tesla will be first to L5 and the model 3 will self deliver itself with no human driver, i can sleep in my car, send out to pick people up and drop off my kids, do work while the car is driving, sleep on long road trip or after a long day.

Then its, who cares, what does it matter if you have to pay attention, why would you want to sleep anyway or do anything else while driving. Aslong as you don't intervene this fulfills Elon's promise. watching a movie while my car drives? lol that's a gimmick, who wants to do that?

Diplomat vs Bladerskb is an amazing exhibition of fully-blind Church of Elon fundamentalist vs. obvious troll protecting corporate/financial interests through FUD.

Elon clearly said that HW2 was FSD and FSD was Level 5, dozens of times. Including that FSD which is level 5 would have "driver-less capability." Including a video that the driver is only there because of legal requirement. So how is that trolling on my part? I'm simply providing a statement directly from Elon, including this:

 

[Vitold]

AP is hardware + software. Current software is based on legacy software a combination of neural networks and hard coded rules. Most likely a lot of code is shared between AP1 and AP2.

Once AP3 comes out we can expect that AP2 hardware will start sharing entirely new code with AP3 leaving AP1 in the dust so to speak. This is not going to be a quick transition but I would expect a jump in capabilities once legacy code is left behind.