FSD Beta Videos (and questions for FSD Beta drivers)

[gearchruncher]

Wow!!! You sure can twist what he said . I paid for FSD I’m extremely happy with being part of the journey. It’s a personal choice and i see vast improvements with the betas.

Nope. He literally said what is there today is worth $8k to him. If it's not, then part of what he bought hasn't been delivered yet (the "journey" you both mentioned) and thus you have an expectation for something delivered in the future. At some point, you will realize that the future for Tesla is always much farther out than you expected.

You can watch the Beta videos for free without paying for FSD.

My car is way better at everything since I bought it in 2020,

Really? What massive improvements have you seen in Autopilot in the last 18 months that are actually on your personal car, not in a youtube video?

Did you purchase FSD and regret it ?

Thankfully, no, given I bought my first Tesla in 2016, and all I would have for that purchase today is the car stopping at stop lights, 5 years later.
Tesla did deliver me a car with not even working cruise control even though they advertised full AP during the purchase, and it was about 27 months before it did what was advertised.
But my frustration comes from the fact I bought my cars on the idea that they would be much closer to FSD in 2021, and I would have paid for FSD by now, and Elon's endless insane timelines and overpromises.

 

[gearchruncher]

You were told you can file in small claims quite some time ago. But never did.

How are you so sure I haven't? Small claims in my area is backed up 9+ months due to COVID.

You can see the images above.
All vehicles have all the HW needed for Full Self Driving Capability.
Then I go into the app and try and subscribe to Full Self Driving Capability. It says I need a HW upgrade.

Tesla does not advertise Full Self Driving Capability purchase any differently than Full Self Driving Capability subscription. They are the same product, with the same name, same features, and same timeline, and Tesla said my car had all HW needed for Full Self Driving Capability. It clearly does not, as even Tesla puts "hardware upgrade required" on the page that lists the product name as "Full Self Driving Capability".

Beyond this, there are things my car does not do because of this discrepancy, which have nothing to do with the FSD purchase, but would not exist if my car was in fact FSD capable.

It is my opinion a judge will see this for what it is, which is that my car, in fact, does not have the HW that Tesla advertised it as having, and this creates a difference for my experience as a consumer, which Tesla guaranteed it would not.

I understand you have a different opinion, and do understand your point of view, although I continue to be surprised at how vehemently anti-consumer and pro-large company you are in this particular situation, and how sure you are that this is black and white.

 

[helvio]

Sure they will. If you own FSD you get the new computer for free.

If you don't own it, you don't need it.

Name a single feature you were promised WITHOUT OWNING FSD that you don't have due to the computer thing.

Nobody ever promised "displays recycling bins" to anybody as an FSD feature.




Which is why I, as an FSD owner, look forward to my next free computer upgrade





As you've had explained to you many times already- the subscription did not exist when that promise was made to you.

The thing that DID exist, buying FSD, remains available to you, and incurs $0.00 in added HW costs to you.

So you have $0.00 in damages.

"They didn't specify I couldn't get a thing that wouldn't exist till years later (the subscription)" would be an hilarious argument to hear in court though. You were told you can file in small claims quite some time ago. But never did. Almost like you know you'd be laughed out of court.




But it's not lack of memory that's the issue. At all.

It's lack of compute

Running more, and larger, NNs, cost more compute.

That's what spilled them over to node B, not adding traditional code.

That's why Elon expects HW4 to be many times safer than HW3 even if they COULD get it working on both-- larger NNs that HW3 can't run at all.




But roughly, I DO know this. So does anybody who follows it.

Green discusses this frequently.

Perception is largely NNs.

Nearly everything else (until a few months ago EVERYTHING else) was C++.

But even before that they kept adding newer, and larger perception NNs in that time, over a year ago having run out of compute on Node A alone to do it.






Wut?

There's no training done on the car at all so no relevance to the car HW there.

Training is done back at HQ on a GPU supercompute cluster right now... and Dojo in the future.





While I appreciate the reference, they had plenty of time to do a LOT of math by hand in advance there. And even then- the actual landing was done manually with an astronaut on the stick.

And Apollo 11 didn't need make a single unprotected left either.

Yes, space sure is much simpler to navigate than the usual backroad. I like how you put it

I know training is not done in the car. But it’s interesting that your counter argument to the moon trip is exactly my point on that topic. Dojo does the calculation, the car does the execution. The question on how much optimization can still be done and whether it will need to leak to node B is unanswered. And I’m not arguing with anyone on this. I clearly state this is an open topic and anything can happen. If you tell me you’re sure it won’t, I’ll say “wait, it might”. If you tell me you’re sure it will, I’ll say “but it might not”. Being on the fence gives you the best view

 

[helvio]

Nope. He literally said what is there today is worth $8k to him. If it's not, then part of what he bought hasn't been delivered yet (the "journey" you both mentioned) and thus you have an expectation for something delivered in the future. At some point, you will realize that the future for Tesla is always much farther out than you expected.

You can watch the Beta videos for free without paying for FSD.


Really? What massive improvements have you seen in Autopilot in the last 18 months that are actually on your personal car, not in a youtube video?


Thankfully, no, given I bought my first Tesla in 2016, and all I would have for that purchase today is the car stopping at stop lights, 5 years later.
Tesla did deliver me a car with not even working cruise control even though they advertised full AP during the purchase, and it was about 27 months before it did what was advertised.
But my frustration comes from the fact I bought my cars on the idea that they would be much closer to FSD in 2021, and I would have paid for FSD by now, and Elon's endless insane timelines and overpromises.

I don’t think you should speak for my expectations. Please don’t do that.

I have had my car for about 13 months and most of my commute to work is a windy road, for 4-5 miles I guess. It was incapable of performing that when I first attempted it. For a few months she’s able to do it flawlessly, with two exceptions only. One, when an oncoming car enters my lane on a curve. Two, potholes were introduced by the recent tornado. So yeah, there are improvements in the last 18 months of ownership wrt autopilot.
And seriously, sky force is amazing!

 

[gearchruncher]

I don’t think you should speak for my expectations. Please don’t do that.

Except @Iain was calling me out as twisting your words, which are below. Did you not say the current features are worth the $8K you paid?

I can only speak for myself but having invested $8K in FSD capability to be paid over the course of the car's finance terms is no big deal for me. I'm happy with the features I have today and I'm happy to be part of the journey.

I have had my car for about 13 months and most of my commute to work is a windy road, for 4-5 miles I guess. It was incapable of performing that when I first attempted it. For a few months she’s able to do it flawlessly, with two exceptions only. One, when an oncoming car enters my lane on a curve. Two, potholes were introduced by the recent tornado. So yeah, there are improvements in the last 18 months of ownership wrt autopilot.

I never meant to represent anything about your experience with improvements, and I don't think my words did that.

Are you using AP on a road that is not a limited access highway in direct opposition to the manual?

I'm glad you've seen improvements. I have not noticed as large a change as you, but even with the ones you listed would not fall into "My car is way better at everything since I bought it in 2020" for myself. Yep, nice, slow, improvements, not "way better at everything." But I apparently have a high bar as well. My mind has not been "blown" by the slow incremental progress of FSD betas either.

And seriously, sky force is amazing!

Glad Tesla identified these have value for many users, but I must use a car really differently than most people. I can't ever remember sitting in car thinking "I want to sit here and play a game on a screen that is weirdly off to my right hand side instead of doing something else in the world." And I LOVE cars. I've only once tried one game on the screen just to see what the heck they are doing. I'd really rather that energy go into better user management, spotify interfaces, track mode, etc personally.

 

[Knightshade]

How are you so sure I haven't?

There's a roughly 0% chance you wouldn't have already mentioned it 753 times for starters

All vehicles have all the HW needed for Full Self Driving Capability.

Ok, but "show garbage cans" is not part of FSD, so your lack of it leaves you with $0.00 in damages.

Then I go into the app and try and subscribe to Full Self Driving Capability. It says I need a HW upgrade.

Yes, because the subscription is a new thing that did not exist when you bought your car

The thing that DID exist, purchase of FSD, remains for sale.

And you remain with $0.00 in damages on the hardware side because if you buy it you get the HW upgrade free.

Tesla does not advertise Full Self Driving Capability purchase any differently than Full Self Driving Capability subscription

Again- the subscription did not exist during the HW2.x era.

Do you need the direction in which time flows explained to you... again?


When the PS4 comes out and says "If you buy this you can play all the latest games" that doesn't mean years later when the PS5 comes out you can sue Sony because your PS4 can't play a new PS5 game that didn't exist back then.

. They are the same product,

Except, they're not.

One adds a permeant feature to your vehicle and explicitly includes future promised improvements and upgrades too.

The other is a subscription service that promises you literally nothing except 1 month of access to current SW features if your car meets certain requirements. Having HW3 being one of them.

So again you get your basic facts wrong.

I'd pay real money to see you argue this whole thing in court if you were ever actually going to (you're not though- I suspect you know deep down how ridiculous your argument is).

with the same name

Factually wrong.

, same features,

Factually wrong.

and same timeline

Factually wrong.

Beyond this, there are things my car does not do because of this discrepancy, which have nothing to do with the FSD purchase

Right... Therefore you have $0.00 in damages from their lack.

You were never promised THOSE non-FSD things ever by anyone for any money at all

It is my opinion a judge will see this for what it is

Someone with no understanding of the law being mad about nonsense?

Agreed.

I understand you have a different opinion, and do understand your point of view, although I continue to be surprised at how vehemently anti-consumer and pro-large company you are in this particular situation, and how sure you are that this is black and white.

On the contrary, this is pro facts and contracts. That goes both ways. In this specific case it goes against your arguments though.

 

[mhan00]

New short drive from Kim. I only watched the first couple of minutes because I need to head out, but so far it looks good.

 

[Knightshade]

Yes, space sure is much simpler to navigate than the usual backroad. I like how you put it

I know training is not done in the car. But it’s interesting that your counter argument to the moon trip is exactly my point on that topic. Dojo does the calculation, the car does the execution.

... that doesn't hold up at all.

NASA knew exactly where the moon would be, and when. And exactly where they were launching from.

NASA knew in advance exactly all the speeds, times, distances, etc for every single bit except the minute or so around landing - which was done manually by a human.- and a few pretty simple course corrections both ways based on any measured variance from the starting assumptions, of which there were a very small # possible--


Dojo has no idea what speed everyone else will be driving on your trip tomorrow- or how many there will be- or what kind of vehicles they'll be- or if any of them will be drunk-- or if anyone will be on a bicycle near you- or even what route you'll take- or a billion other unknowns that a self-driving system on earth in the car will have to make decisions about.

Currently the only part Dojo will help with improving are things like "How accurately does the car recognize that's a person on a bicycle" or "How accurately does the car figure out how fast and far away is that other car" since virtually all the NNs today are simply for perception tasks.

Even when more things get moved to NNs, that's gonna give Dojo more NNs to help train, but also mean more compute to run those NNs on the car... and the cars HW will also remain a limit on the size of those NNs-- a limit they'd already run into on HW2.x years ago despite initially thinking THAT would be enough compute.


There's a reason we went to the moon in 1969 but we still don't even know the amount of compute needed for FSD on earth. It's a VASTLY harder problem.

The question on how much optimization can still be done and whether it will need to leak to node B is unanswered. And I’m not arguing with anyone on this. I clearly state this is an open topic and anything can happen. If you tell me you’re sure it won’t, I’ll say “wait, it might”. If you tell me you’re sure it will, I’ll say “but it might not”. Being on the fence gives you the best view

To be clear, I agree it's unanswered.... but I do read Elons 200-300% vs 1000% comment, in addition to his mention of both HW4 and an upgraded sensor suite coming next year, as pretty strong evidence what we have today isn't gonna get us to L5.... and combined with Greens insights into the compute being used, and James Douma having confirmed the NNs from a while back were already too large to fit in a single node and they keep expanding and adding to em.... I think there's at least a heavy preponderance of evidence you won't ever get better than L2 out of HW3

(unless you go down the line of thinking that you don't need redundancy in your system before you say it's ok to not need a human... which I find exceedingly unlikely)

 

[gearchruncher]

One adds a permeant feature to your vehicle and explicitly includes future promised improvements and upgrades too.

Again- the subscription did not exist during the HW2.x era.

So, @helvio has FSD bought in 2020, well past the 2019 description changes.
He thinks he's entitled to HW4 (if needed), and all features that Tesla might develop beyond the ones currently described that Tesla markets as "FSD."

Do you think people that bought FSD after April 2019 get HW4 if HW3 can do everything listed on their purchase date, which we all seem to agree stops at an L2 description of city streets autosteer?

It appears if we're tied only to what was available and described on your date of purchase, then 2016-2019 FSD was full L4, and 2019+ is just L2, and Tesla will only owe 2016-2019 FSD purchasers HW4, given it's pretty clear Tesla is going to release CSA on HW3. And if Tesla wants to release full auto park and call it a FSD feature, they only owe it to 2019- purchasers and any new purchases?

 

[qdeathstar]

How about this question @gearchruncher. Why do you think Tesla legally owes people more than what is explicitly written in their contract?

let’s say you take them to court and “win” what amount does that look like for someone who didn’t buy fsd but still wants hardware 4. How much money is that worth? The cost of the level 4 computer, so about $1000???

 

[Knightshade]

So, @helvio has FSD bought in 2020, well past the 2019 description changes.

Right, meaning he bought a different thing than I did in 2018.

He thinks he's entitled to HW4 (if needed), and all features that Tesla might develop beyond the ones currently described that Tesla markets as "FSD."

Legally, per the details of the product description he purchased, he's owed city streets driving (at L2).

At that point he's gotten everything that was explicitly promised as part of that purchase.

Do you think people that bought FSD after April 2019 get HW4 if HW3 can do everything listed on their purchase date, which we all seem to agree stops at an L2 description of city streets autosteer?

What they get, and what they're legally owed, might not be the same thing.

Legally Tesla didn't "owe" all the 3P buyers a $5000 refund when they decided to make the PUP standard- but they offered them one anyway for example.

It wouldn't surprise me if they decided to reward those who bought FSD at full price an additional HW upgrade if it turns out needed for >L2, but I don't think they'd necessarily have a legal obligation to provide one.

It appears if we're tied only to what was available and described on your date of purchase, then 2016-2019 FSD was full L4, and 2019+ is just L2, and Tesla will only owe 2016-2019 FSD purchasers HW4, given it's pretty clear Tesla is going to release CSA on HW3. And if Tesla wants to release full auto park and call it a FSD feature, they only owe it to 2019- purchasers and any new purchases?

That's exactly what I've said since Tesla made the change in ~April 2019 in the first place. That they were drastically reducing potential future liabilities if they ended up unable to deliver on FSDs promised future features.

THAT said- it was largely in the context of the idea Tesla decides they simply can't provide L4+ FSD with anything remotely compatible with existing sensors and computer and have to refund people. As long as they deliver city streets at L2 they owe the post 4/19 buyers nothing back.

If instead it turns out "We just swap HW4 for HW3 and push a software update and BAM! L4+" then I think it's likely Tesla will do that for all FSD owners because it'd be pretty cheap goodwill and excellent press for them, and they'll have massively more cash than they know what to do with if they solve FSD anytime soon anyway.

Subscribers might still be on the hook to pay for an upgrade though


Also- wildcard idea- just before they announce HW4, they stop selling FSD at all, leaving only subscription (with no HW upgrades included) as an option to stop all the folks like yourself who resisted buying all this time from jumping on the bandwagon for the free upgrades when it's already a done deal.

 

[gearchruncher]

Why do you think Tesla legally owes people more than what is explicitly written in their contract?

There are two versions of this:
1) Show me the "explicit contract" for FSD purchases or car purchases and what you are owed, back from 2017. You'll find there is nothing. Show me where it says a hardware upgrade is part of the purchase of FSD (especially when you bought FSD long before any HW upgrade was even theorized!). I mean, in this case, @Knightshade says he's 100% sure he gets HW3 to HW4 upgrades because Tesla said so when they did HW2 to HW3, and he's an FSD purchaser. Well, they didn't say so in any contract, and they didn't say that until 2019, so anyone that bought FSD before that gets no upgrade.

2) Acknowledge that all the things Tesla's website said at the time of purchase apply to the purchaser, and form part of the contract.

If #2 is true...

Tesla's website said "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver."

So the "contract" does say that was part of the VEHICLE purchase. Why is there any question? It doesn't say if you buy FSD. It says if you buy a car, you get all the HW needed for FSD, full stop.

Now, that turned out not to be true, and I don't think that is in question, right? A HW2 / 2.5 computer is not FSD CAPAPABLE. Tesla makes this clear.

But so what unless you bought FSD, right? Well, like I pointed out, there ARE differences even if you didn't pay for FSD outright. So yeah, a customer is allowed to care. It means you can't subscribe to FSD, and it means it doesn't read speed limit signs (which was in the manual as a feature for years). Tesla doesn't get to dismiss those as no big deal. If they're a big deal to you as a customer, it matters. You didn't get what was advertised, and because of that, the vehicle has less value.

The less value thing is important too- HW2/2.5 cars sell for LESS than HW3 cars, because they do less. You have diminished value due to Tesla's incorrect advertisement. If the car was actually FSD capable, this price difference would not exist.

let’s say you take them to court and “win” what amount does that look like for someone who didn’t buy fsd but still wants hardware 4. How much money is that worth? The cost of the level 4 computer, so about $1000???

The "win" is getting whatever computer is needed to make your car FSD capable. In the past, this was an issue as Tesla wouldn't sell you one, or give you one without FSD purchase, so this was hard. Conveniently, they have now defined a process. Give us $1K, we'll upgrade your computer. So yeah, $1k in cash from Tesla (plus Tax) makes you whole. Or Tesla installing the computer for free. That's all it takes. This is HW2/2.5 to HW3 today, and can repeat itself for HW3 to HW4 in the future.

 

[gearchruncher]

Also- wildcard idea- just before they announce HW4, they stop selling FSD at all, leaving only subscription (with no HW upgrades included) as an option to stop all the folks like yourself who resisted buying all this time from jumping on the bandwagon for the free upgrades when it's already a done deal.

Like some other FSD buyers, I sense some sort of "we're special" and "you should be punished" in all of this. That you're true believers and everyone else is not really all that supportive of Tesla. Like Tesla will give you something special that they won't give others because you bought FSD way before it had any usefulness.

We all bought $40K+ cars from Tesla. But you're agreeing that Tesla owes post 2019 FSD purchasers nothing beyond CSA, but suggest that as "goodwill" they might do all sorts of upgrades and new features because those people are special against the unwashed masses without FSD.

But then you hope that for those of us that have "resisted" buying (apparently 85% of Tesla buyers), they figure our a way to give the exact reverse of goodwill for all those customers. And you 100% support Tesla not giving any goodwill to HW2/2.5 owners who were told their cars were FSD capable, when they are not. Yet you don't see the irony in hoping the company goodwills your situation while calling other people crazy and stupid for not seeing how they don't deserve anything.

You bought FSD in 2018. HW3 was not a thing, Tesla had never mentioned it. Why do you think HW upgrades are part of your FSD purchase? It for sure wasn't in any contract because it didn't exist. Kind of like FSD subscription didn't exist either. You're 100% sure that Tesla doesn't owe FSD capable computers to people whose cars were advertised as having it, because FSD subscriptions weren't yet a thing. So why are you so sure you're owed an upgrade? HW upgrades weren't a thing then either.

 

[qdeathstar]

There are two versions of this:
1) Show me the "explicit contract" for FSD purchases or car purchases and what you are owed, back from 2017. You'll find there is nothing. Show me where it says a hardware upgrade is part of the purchase of FSD (especially when you bought FSD long before any HW upgrade was even theorized!). I mean, in this case, @Knightshade says he's 100% sure he gets HW3 to HW4 upgrades because Tesla said so when they did HW2 to HW3, and he's an FSD purchaser. Well, they didn't say so in any contract, and they didn't say that until 2019, so anyone that bought FSD before that gets no upgrade.

I agree. He may not get HW4 for free based simply on what it says in his contract.

However the situation is a little more complicated because he bought FSD. If he doesn’t get hardware 4 he cannot get full self driving which he did pay for so. Because Tesla has to deliver fsd to him he is owed hardware 4 because it is required for full self driving.

You didn’t pay for full self driving so Tesla doesn’t have to deliver it to you and therefore you aren’t owed hw4.

see the difference?

2) Acknowledge that all the things Tesla's website said at the time of purchase apply to the purchaser, and form part of the contract.

Unfortunately that’s not what a contract is dear….

The less value thing is important too- HW2/2.5 cars sell for LESS than HW3 cars, because they do less. You have diminished value due to Tesla's incorrect advertisement. If the car was actually FSD capable, this price difference would not exist.

that’s because the are older, not because of the hardware.

The "win" is getting whatever computer is needed to make your car FSD capable. In the past, this was an issue as Tesla wouldn't sell you one, or give you one without FSD purchase, so this was hard. Conveniently, they have now defined a process. Give us $1K, we'll upgrade your computer. So yeah, $1k in cash from Tesla (plus Tax) makes you whole. Or Tesla installing the computer for free. That's all it takes. This is HW2/2.5 to HW3 today, and can repeat itself for HW3 to HW4 in the future.

A court will not order Tesla to make specific performance. At most you will receive whatever the court decides are the real damages you have experienced. There’s not punitive damages in small claims court so the judge cannot “punish” Tesla for false advertising.

I think that where your case has the most legs is regarding subscriptions. Because Tesla said that cars have hardware for full self driving but then if you want to subscribe you have to update your hardware out of pocket. That may be a issue for Tesla going forward, we sulk see.

 

[helvio]

... that doesn't hold up at all.

NASA knew exactly where the moon would be, and when. And exactly where they were launching from.

NASA knew in advance exactly all the speeds, times, distances, etc for every single bit except the minute or so around landing - which was done manually by a human.- and a few pretty simple course corrections both ways based on any measured variance from the starting assumptions, of which there were a very small # possible--


Dojo has no idea what speed everyone else will be driving on your trip tomorrow- or how many there will be- or what kind of vehicles they'll be- or if any of them will be drunk-- or if anyone will be on a bicycle near you- or even what route you'll take- or a billion other unknowns that a self-driving system on earth in the car will have to make decisions about.

Currently the only part Dojo will help with improving are things like "How accurately does the car recognize that's a person on a bicycle" or "How accurately does the car figure out how fast and far away is that other car" since virtually all the NNs today are simply for perception tasks.

Even when more things get moved to NNs, that's gonna give Dojo more NNs to help train, but also mean more compute to run those NNs on the car... and the cars HW will also remain a limit on the size of those NNs-- a limit they'd already run into on HW2.x years ago despite initially thinking THAT would be enough compute.


There's a reason we went to the moon in 1969 but we still don't even know the amount of compute needed for FSD on earth. It's a VASTLY harder problem.




To be clear, I agree it's unanswered.... but I do read Elons 200-300% vs 1000% comment, in addition to his mention of both HW4 and an upgraded sensor suite coming next year, as pretty strong evidence what we have today isn't gonna get us to L5.... and combined with Greens insights into the compute being used, and James Douma having confirmed the NNs from a while back were already too large to fit in a single node and they keep expanding and adding to em.... I think there's at least a heavy preponderance of evidence you won't ever get better than L2 out of HW3

(unless you go down the line of thinking that you don't need redundancy in your system before you say it's ok to not need a human... which I find exceedingly unlikely)

NASA knew all that. DOJO simulates all that. It’s essentially the same thing, but made more generic. And yes, I’m aware we’re talking various orders of magnitude in complexity differences.

About traditional code vs NN, I don’t really feel like discussing anymore. It’s not going to achieve anything and any outcome is possible. I just don’t pretend to know more than I do, which is “both currently exist and they are working on migrating traditional to NN”. We know what Tesla decides to tell us. And reverse engineering is not exactly trustworthy. Geohot is a brilliant man, hacked the PS4 and said the hardware was essentially flawed and Sony would never be able to patch it with software. He was wrong. He then created comma and openpilot. So all I’m saying is: I’ve seen things happen.

 

[gearchruncher]

Unfortunately that’s not what a contract is dear….

Cool. Can you please show me the Vehicle and FSD purchase contracts that go into detail on exactly what you get? Nobody has ever been able to show me one, and I've bought 4 Teslas and EAP 4 times.

I can go into my app today, click buy FSD, and get charged $5K and it's on my car (well would be if I had HW3). Where is the contract? How does tesla deliver it? How can I see it before I purchase? Contracts delivered after the transaction aren't valid. Everyone acts like there is some actual written contract and Tesla is perfect about reviewing it with purchasers before the purchase, and then forget people have literally accidentally bought FSD when their finger slipped in the app.

You didn’t pay for full self driving so Tesla doesn’t have to deliver it to you and therefore you aren’t owed hw4.

I bought a car. That car advertised "all hw required for full self driving capability." Why am I not owed HW3? I paid for the car. Why do I need to justify to anyone why I want what was advertised? I can easily prove it makes a difference, and that's all that matters.

that’s because the are older, not because of the hardware.

Nope. There are Mid 2019 cars that are identical in age, some have HW2.5, some HW3. The HW3 ones are worth more for obvious reasons. They do more than HW2.5 cars, even without FSD subscriptions. If you were offered identical age and mileage Teslas, one with HW2.5 and one with HW3, you would always go with HW3.

At most you will receive whatever the court decides are the real damages you have experienced. There’s not punitive damages in small claims court so the judge cannot “punish” Tesla for false advertising.

Never asked for punitive. $1K is exactly what it takes to make me whole because that's how much Tesla will charge to make me whole.
Oh, and in many states, punitive damages ARE available in small claims court (but not mine).

I think that where your case has the most legs is regarding subscriptions. Because Tesla said that cars have hardware for full self driving but then if you want to subscribe you have to update your hardware out of pocket. That may be a issue for Tesla going forward, we sulk see.

According to @Knightshade there is zero issue here. Because FSD subs didn't exist at the time, "all hw for FSD capability" clearly meant only buying FSD outright, not subscribing to the exact same software. Ironically, buying FSD in 2018 somehow meant HW upgrades are clearly owed though, even though they didn't exist at the time.
The real issue is who is going to "make them see"?

 

[Bladerskb]

These are a useful starting point, but one has to normalize for the quality of those miles, vs both where Tesla vehicles are operating and even changes between years for Waymo.

You mean the diversity of these miles? Urban miles isn't more higher quality than surburban. They are both needed. But yes Waymo was testing predominately in MV but that changed and they have been testing in SF in recent years.

For many of those years, most miles accrued were probably in Mountain View, CA. I worked in there much of last decade, certainly some challenging intersections but nothing crazy. But at some point I assume they started doing more testing elsewhere, was that a steady increase or step function increase in a few years? For instance, it looks like not much improvement btw 2018 and 2019, but if Waymo tested in more difficult areas in 2019, then that would be considered bigger progress than it appears.

I think they mentioned something to that effect. But what we do know is that they are at 30k per safety disengagement with a blend of MV and SF. I'm sure you don't think they launched their Early Riders program acouple weeks ago without any testing at all.

With Tesla we have no real data, we have to do some estimation for any comparison of absolute state and rate of change. I really don't know about absolute state. I like to think of what it would be in one particular area, say Mountain View, or Chandler Az.

Here's the thing, Waymo has been doing 100k miles per week in SF this year. If they keep this up that's around 3-4 million miles.
While doing maneuvers like this that @powertoold won't show you. If in Feb 2022 we discover that they disengagement is around 35k and we estimate from watching videos in SF that Tesla is still under 100 miles. We can accurately determine that Waymo is still 35x better than Tesla. If Tesla is under 50 miles per safety disengagement. That would put Waymo over 70x better. This is even more evident if by the end of 2022, Waymo launches their SF driverless service with no NDA. What then ZeApelido?

If FSD 10 was operating in Chandler, what do you think the miles / disengagement would be? I'd guess somewhere in the 100s, maybe. Maybe less.

IF you put FSD 10 in the 50 sq mile as Waymo and have it route through those parking lots. First of all it won't be capable of even doing all waymo routes. It can't reverse and it can't respond to emergency vehicles or direction from emergency personnel. Then you have parking lots that waymo drives in that it might have trouble in like costco and when i say trouble, I mean a safety disengagement. Also remember the beta still have troubles with yellow lights, it still sometimes runs stop signs and red traffic lights. predicting oncoming or adjacent traffic in order to turn or merg.

So with all that i would say the average miles/disengagement would be 25-50.

So quite low compared to Waymo. That being said, the rate of progress in the past year seems faster than anything Waymo has showed. I could easily see a 10x on this metric in the past year.

Yes but technology get proliferated. What took the drapa grand challengers the most expensive sensors in the whole and the best experts in the world and years with millions of lines of code. Would take someone a $10 camera and some run of the mill academic NN model to replicate. So its not tesla's expertise, its simply the advancement of technology (and i'm not saying Tesla doesn't have expertise, their team is definitely capable).

Based on so much of the interventions being routing confusion, I could easily see this improve 10x in the next year. At that point, Tesla could be in the thousands of miles / intervention (again I'm saying on the same distribution of environments Waymo is reporting on, not just downtown SF).

Be careful with that, what some refer to as routing confusion is simply deficiency of relying heavily on an online NN to determine the driveable space. Rather than on their map and then switching to their online NN when it has confidence that their map is wrong.

Take a look at this video:

Acouple things:
1. It messes up a left turn on a road that has rail road track. Some people would say this is routing issue, but its not. Its a perception and driving policy issue.
2. It tries to run into a road closed signs. perception and driving policy issue.
3. It accelerates into a slow car up ahead and almost rear ends them. driving policy issue.
4. It completely mounts a curb. perception and driving policy issue.

The only thing here that is a routing issue is it trying to use the bike lane.
Refer to my statements above of Waymo doing 100k per week this year in SF.

So Waymo is probably 100 times better than Tesla right now, and maybe 10 times better next year. After that I don't have a clear idea of where the interventions are going to cluster and what the limiting factors will be. How much more can Tesla improve at that time, and how quickly. I would guess the rate of improvement would slow down a lot. Maybe 2x or 3x. Much is dependent on how many of the issues are due to limitations of the cameras and inference compute power.

But if Tesla can reach 10x from current state, I think that makes a darn good L2 system. Enough to make most customers happy. Progress to L4, I'm gonna reevaluate in another year.

Although there are legitmate issues with the cam, resolution, dynamic range and placement (and lack of), the compute hardware as an out. The hardware 144 TOPS is very much capable. Mobileye for example uses 192 TOPS.

And I see waymo as currently being 320x-1000x better atm.
Secondly you are overestimating the improvement of Tesla and underestimating the improvement of Waymo.
Remember the chart i showed you, based on history waymo will improve to a ~90k per disengagement or more in SF and they will mostly be testing in SF.
Not saying that Tesla won't see 10x at some point and i agree with you that you already 10x from last October. But like you said, its easy to 10x at the early stages when your system sucks.

As someone said on twitter. "each 9 in the "March of 9s" is literally ten times harder than the previous 9? 99% isn't halfway to 99.99% ... it is only 1% of the way there." When @powertoold keeps saying that in acouple of months it will be L5 and safer than humans. He is fundamentally failing to understand the above.

 

[Knightshade]

There are two versions of this:
1) Show me the "explicit contract" for FSD purchases or car purchases and what you are owed, back from 2017. You'll find there is nothing.

Objectively false.

You've been shown what the buyer was shown during the purchase multiple times.

You ignore or dismiss it every time, then pretend you never saw it later.

Pre 4/19 buyers are "owed" at least L4 driving, you can argue somewhat on if they're owed L5 or not.

Just as everyone buying today is owed a HW upgrade if needed and that too is explicitly listed in the purchase description but you keep pretending it's not.

But so what unless you bought FSD, right? Well, like I pointed out, there ARE differences even if you didn't pay for FSD outright.

None of which are part of FSD, which is the thing you were actually promised you could buy and use on the car

So you have $0.00 in damages here.

If you buy FSD you STILL GET THE COMPUTER FREE and can use FSD.

If you don't buy FSD you're not "owed" anything at all since the only thing promised here was you could buy FSD and use it on the car.

Like some other FSD buyers, I sense some sort of "we're special" and "you should be punished" in all of this.

I can't speak to the root cause of your projection issues.

Which are pretty clear, since every post from you screams you think you're being punished because you didn't buy FSD yet still feel entitled to free stuff anyway.

You bought FSD in 2018. HW3 was not a thing, Tesla had never mentioned it. Why do you think HW upgrades are part of your FSD purchase?

For exactly the reason you keep yelling about

I was promised the car had the HW to buy and use FSD (which was the only FSD that existed at purchase time).

Thus as someone who purchased FSD then I'm entitled to any added HW it turns out is needed to make that true. (But not any needed if I DID NOT buy FSD- including to be eligible for an as-a-service offering that came years later)

Indeed, when HW2.5 first became known (BEFORE I bought the car)- Tesla stated publicly they'd be upgrading anybody who OWNED FSD and needed upgraded HW... (so your suggestion I had no indication this was true is- yet again- factually untrue- and again you've had this explained to you multiple times in the past but keep pretending you have not)

 

[Knightshade]

NASA knew all that. DOJO simulates all that

I think you are misunderstanding what DOJO does.

It doesn't simulate anything.

(I mean, it doesn't really do anything at all today, they still use the GPU supercompute cluster for the job Dojo WILL do when it's actually done, but same idea).

Dojo is to train NNs.

Simulation as shown on AI day is an entirely different thing done to generate the data to train NNs

It's not the same thing at all.


At a really high level an example difference is:

Simulation runs on a non-AI-training-specific system to generate a bunch of examples of "UFO lands on highway" from different perspectives, different lighting conditions, with different environments-- this is done because the event is so rare they don't have any fleet data to use.

Then that data goes to Dojo- to train the perception NNs to recognize a UFO landing on the highway-- not to pre-decide what your car should do about it in every possible case.

So not the same thing as Apollo at all.

About traditional code vs NN, I don’t really feel like discussing anymore. It’s not going to achieve anything and any outcome is possible.

I already agreed any outcome was possible

I was just pointing out all the available evidence strongly points to the most likely outcome as needing HW4 (or more possibly- since until someone actually solves it we don't know how much compute is needed, each HW iteration has been a guess at that amount and wrong every time so far) to get better than L2 due to the need for redundancy.

 

[helvio]

I think you are misunderstanding what DOJO does.

It doesn't simulate anything.

(I mean, it doesn't really do anything at all today, they still use the GPU supercompute cluster for the job Dojo WILL do when it's actually done, but same idea).

Dojo is to train NNs.

Simulation as shown on AI day is an entirely different thing done to generate the data to train NNs

It's not the same thing at all.


At a really high level an example difference is:

Simulation runs on a non-AI-training-specific system to generate a bunch of examples of "UFO lands on highway" from different perspectives, different lighting conditions, with different environments-- this is done because the event is so rare they don't have any fleet data to use.

Then that data goes to Dojo- to train the perception NNs to recognize a UFO landing on the highway-- not to pre-decide what your car should do about it in every possible case.

So not the same thing as Apollo at all.






I already agreed any outcome was possible

I was just pointing out all the available evidence strongly points to the most likely outcome as needing HW4 (or more possibly- since until someone actually solves it we don't know how much compute is needed, each HW iteration has been a guess at that amount and wrong every time so far) to get better than L2 due to the need for redundancy.

Since you're trying so hard to be right, there you go, here's a star for you

Thanks for explaining DOJO better than the architects and engineers behind it. You're definitely right and the people who designed it are wrong.

That must also mean HW3 is not enough, because again, I'm someone wrong on the internet and you're correcting me. It's important.