FSD Beta 10.69

[EVNow]

No one claimed this. Spin is most definitely not lies!!! It is just providing a favorable interpretation. Which is what was done.

I disagree.

This is also factually correct, in the observation window. It’s not implying that FSDb was going to crash.

I disagree with this too. The implications are clear.

You are just "spinning" OP's comment in the most favorable way possible for them.

 

[Gbills]

The vehicle accelerated into the car in its immediate path, before starting to slow down, before FSD was disengaged. None of this is interpreted, unless we want to get really philosophical.

I think it is fair to call that, factually, inadequate braking. Unless the objective is collisions.

FSDb is a dangerous game of who do you trust with a dash of chicken added to the mix.

 

[Edtreo]

Let' us ask DT to chime in.

 

[PACEMD]

Got my 2022.44.30.10 update today. Really pleased to see the improvements to Fart Noise, Light Show, Apple Music, etc. Just a little disappointed to see no improvements in actual use as an automobile. Ah, priorities. . . . . . . . .

Gets musical farting light shows and still complains...........why I never...........

 

[kabin]

Exactly. That is why I highlighted OP's comment as speculation. OP not only implied collision was a "fact" - he also implied DirtyTesla lied.



Even when, DT says he thinks the car would have stopped because the other car is in blue and the solid blue line turns to pale blue showing planning to stop.

This is getting silly. Speculation on top of supposed speculation to create drama to detract from the topic.

 

[kabin]

Dirty Tesla might disagree - after all that is your interpretation. I've also disengaged multiple times when I felt the slow down was late or inadequate. DO I think everytime car would have crashed - not at all. I'm never sure.

BTW, a few releases back the car wouldn't slow down until quite late on a right turn. I used to disengage so as not to miss the turn. One day I decided to wait - and guess what it did. It not only slowed down but took a nice turn. Now I don't disengage, and it always brakes late and turns.

It is important to distinguish between facts (perceived late slow down) and speculation (Dirty Tesla is saying collision would have been avoided only because he is an influencer).

ps : I'd have 100% braked in that situation. I check my recordings for such occurrences - and I'm never sure whether the car would have stopped. I'll start carefully checking that dark blue / light blue to make better judgements - but will always brake if the car doesn't slow down fast enough. Not only to avoid possible collision but also to not scare the other drivers.

pps : Again, note we are not discussing whether there is enough evidence whether the car would have stopped or not - it is about whether there is enough evidence to claim that Dirty Tesla lied.

Down the down the rabbit hole you go.

 

[EVNow]

Down the down the rabbit hole you go.

LOL. Spinning to escape culpability.

 

[kabin]

Elon today at the Q4 Earning Livestream again attempted put a value on FSD. It went something like this:

The value of FSD grows as FSD capability grows. And when it becomes fully autonomous the value increase in the fleet might be the biggest asset value increase in history.

 

[kabin]

Back to the 10.69 thread....

Here's another 10.69.25.2 challenged intervention during an UPL. FSDb struggles, stops, dawdles, even after the driver applies throttle 3 separate times. FSDb eventually completes the intersection arc of the turn in about 25 secs time.

Many needless lane changes.

 

[willow_hiller]

I experienced some major regressions in the rain today. 10.69.25.2 was occasionally interpreting large puddles as solid obstacles, to the point where it was actually tried taking evasive action into adjacent lanes. The visualization displayed large grey blobs in the middle of the road, and disengaged itself as I was gripping the wheel solidly when it tried to swerve around them.

On a positive note, I think this likely means they're working on evading small road debris. But it obviously needs a lot more work.

 

[Dewg]

Back to the 10.69 thread....

Here's another 10.69.25.2 challenged intervention during an UPL. FSDb struggles, stops, dawdles, even after the driver applies throttle 3 separate times. FSDb eventually completes the intersection arc of the turn in about 25 secs time.

Many needless lane changes.

It's why I like Chris' videos. He shows the whole trip, good and bad.

 

[JHCCAZ]

...when it becomes fully autonomous the value increase in the fleet might be the biggest asset value increase in history.

Well, almost as much as a roll of toilet paper in the spring of 2020.
For most, a visit to the paper aisle in Walmart was more disruptive than self-driving cars.

I mean, one is cool but the other is essential...

 

[FSDtester#1]

As per the earnings call, looks like there will be no upgrade option for hw3 to hw4.
They made it sound like hw3 will get there and do the job at around 2 to 3 times safer than us humans. Hw4 will be 4 to 5 times safer. I am paraphrasing but that was the jist. They said the upgrade would be too costly and labor intensive.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

and do the job at around 2 to 3 times safer than us humans.

Presumably this means that when the human is driving, the car with FSDb turned on will be 3x safer (with the human driving, as mentioned) than a typical human driving without FSDb turned on (and no other assists - this could start becoming a moving target if they don’t hurry!).

But no one knows for sure. Also not clear that this is possible since you may hit a limit due to driver no longer driving even though that is not the design intent.

 

[VanFriscia]

As per the earnings call, looks like there will be no upgrade option for hw3 to hw4.
They made it sound like hw3 will get there and do the job at around 2 to 3 times safer than us humans. Hw4 will be 4 to 5 times safer. I am paraphrasing but that was the just. They said the upgrade would be too costly and labor intensive.

Yeah, that kinda ticked me off. I get the impression that their plan is "Well, we said an FSD purchase would guarantee all the hardware required to make it work, so we're going to have to deliver this...somehow, in some form...on HW3, because things have changed too much at this point to retrofit beyond that." Wonderful.

Probably by the time Tesla actually has FSD solved, we'll all be powering our vehicles with Brawndo

 

[FSDtester#1]

Presumably this means that when the human is driving, the car with FSDb turned on will be 3x safer (with the human driving, as mentioned) than a typical human driving without FSDb turned on.

But no one knows for sure. Also not clear that this is possible since you may hit a limit due to driver no longer driving even though that is not the design intent.

Agreed, you could almost hear the all the moans when they said it.
So, basically if you want hw4, Cybertruck gets it first, then on to S3XY...
According to the call.

 

[FSDtester#1]

Probably by the time Tesla actually has FSD solved, we'll all be powering our vehicles with Brawndo

Makes sense... I mean it's got electrolytes!

Sponsored by Carl's Jr.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Agreed, you could almost hear the all the moans when they said it.
So, basically if you want hw4, Cybertruck gets it first, then on to S3XY...
According to the call.

It also means HW4 will be quite poor! Who wants that?

It is a very very low bar, just 5x better - with the human still driving!

 

[heapmaster]

great really was hoping to upgrade...I wonder if they will need two different FSD branches for HV3 and then HW4 since they are so different.

 

[FSDtester#1]

It also means HW4 will be quite poor! Who wants that?

It is a very very low bar, just 5x better - with the human still driving!

Agreed again... there was no excitement when discussing HW4..it was very matter of fact