It’s not even close to 500 miles unless you were on the interstate for 500 miles driving strait and even then it’s doubtful.
I feel like it is 10-15 miles on well marked roads with stoplights and 0-5 miles on other roads.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I feel like it is 10-15 miles on well marked roads with stoplights and 0-5 miles on other roads.
powertoold
Active Member
Ya, I previously posted that I think fsd should be safe and reliable enough to do some geofenced routes within 6 months. People think I'm crazy, and perhaps I am lol. But I think the current approach will allow for reliable driving soon. There are a lot of little issues, but most of these issues should be fixed "soon", and fsd should be ready to perform some routes safely and consistently in 6 months.
Robotaxis not only require safety and reliability though. There's an entire ecosystem that needs to be built for robotaxis, like support infrastructure, software, testing, etc.
What I'm noticing while using 10.2 are some very consistent issues, not random. Based on progress we've seen in the past, Tesla can and will fix consistent issues.
As one example, straight unprotected left turns made huge progress between 10.1 and 10.2 (~2 weeks)...
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Stop where it is driving on the road - and in my case open the garage door too
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
I think you're underestimating other drivers ability to dodge you.
Think about how many collisions you've avoided that would have been caused by other drivers.
@powertoold used to think it was 1 per 4 million+ miles so he's definitely getting closer to reality! To be fair that was a more severe collision definition...
Poll: FSD Beta V9.1, how close is it to release (i.e. out of beta)?
The stated goal for FSD is to be twice as safe as human drivers when used unsupervised. Tesla's safety data shows an accident rate of 1 per 2 million miles without Autopilot enabled (Tesla Vehicle Safety Report). They define an accident as "all crashes in which the crash alert indicated an...
teslamotorsclub.com
powertoold
Active Member
lol I think those polls are silly, so I chose the most unlikely answer
EVNow
Well-Known Member
In my case - within a mile or two FSD will disengage by itself. There are roads out of my neighborhood it can't properly handle.
FloridaJohn
Member
Using your 500 mile estimate, that puts you at about 0.3% of your prediction for July 2021 (1 accident every 150,000 miles).
Just something to keep in mind when you make these predictions.
powertoold
Active Member
Using your 500 mile estimate, that puts you at about 0.3% of your prediction for July 2021 (1 accident every 150,000 miles).
Just something to keep in mind when you make these predictions.
Yup, my posts back in Oct 2020 were about geofenced routes (if you look at the 3 relevant posts I made that day). I obviously didn't mean like Manhattan or any location of your choosing. I even prefaced my prediction with how crazy I think it is, so I didn't think it was likely. Anyway, I want to put this to rest. I've already admitted defeat about some of my prior predictions.
Last edited:
It isn't. @powertoold has made a dozen predictions and claims in the last year alone and none of them. Absolutely zero, zip, nada has happened. Yet he keeps trucking on and just moves the goal post or tries to revise history of what he said.
Musk says the improvements are exponential. I'm just saying we may be way out on the negative axis where the change with time is slow, small slope. So it looks like not much is happening to get us to level 3 (time = 0) any time soon. Exponential doesn't necessarily mean what Musk implied, fast change with time.
powertoold
Active Member
It may exponential. Example:
Have to disengage for same or similar issue every 10 miles
Tesla fixes issue, now have to disengage for another issue every 100 miles
Tesla fixes another issue ... 1000
10,000... so on
There's definitely a pattern of issues that lead to my disengagements. Hopefully the repeating issues get fixed, leading to "exponentially" fewer disengagements.
If @powertoold post was strictly accident then guess what? It was already fulfilled in the very first month. The beta testers went over 150k miles without an accident and there still hasn't been any accident *according to Elon.
Clearly the only way to compare and evaluate a SDC that is still in testing to average human reliability and accident rate, is not by trying to count accidents that happen when there are humans literally taking over and preventing them. Because there won't be any accidents. Because the drivers are preventing them. duhhhhhhhhh.
But by actually counting accidents that WOULD HAVE occurred if the human driver didn't take over.
Hence they are called safety related disengagement.
The context to @powertoold statement is that Tesla is done, its game over and Tesla is 5+ years ahead. They already won and it will be ready in 6 months and it will have human reliability (accident rate). Then someone then looked up the stats for human reliability and then @powertoold then said it will easily match that in 6 months.
@powertoold post prompted a 3 page discussion on 150k miles per disengagement. At no point did he ever correct anyone in those 3 pages. He joined the discussion and double downed, directly linking disengagement to this statement.
Here was my question to powertold directly quoting his prediction.
Here is his response, notice he again doesn't correct that he isn't talking about disengagement but rather links both.
Its okay to be wrong, its not okay to be wrong then try to revise history and conjure up another prediction while at the same time spewing misinformation.
At another point @powertoold also said that Tesla will have L5 that was better than humans behind closed door by end of the 2021 or something similar to that.
powertoold
Active Member
I already pointed out that some people here said I said "interventions" when I never mentioned the word.
So some people here have problems with reading comprehension and/or gaslighting.
So some people here have problems with reading comprehension and/or gaslighting.
….. acceleratorlighting 
rxlawdude
Active Member
EVNow
Well-Known Member
We talked about this "exponential" thing a lot in 2019 when Elon first brought it up. Here was my take on how that could happen ...
So, what does that mean in terms of march of 9s ? It depends on the distribution of edge cases by their probability of occuring. In one case this leads to exponentially better FSD, in others not.
Assuming Tesla can solve 100 scenarios in a year, in this ideal case - it takes 100 scenarios to go from 90% quality to 99%, as each of them have 0.09% of occurring. Next year, again Tesla solves 100 scenarios which have 0.009% probability of (i.e. 1/10 the 1st year scenarios). So FSD goes from 99% to 99.9%.
But if the edge cases are such that the second year ones have 0.005% probability of occurring, FSD only goes from 99% to 99.5%. So, as I said whether solving a certain number of edge cases a year results in exponentially better quality or not depends on the probability distribution.
BUT, since we are talking about the long tail and the total of all probabilities need to be 100, it is somewhat reasonable to assume that the probability goes down exponentially i.e. asymptotically approaches zero. So, Tesla FSD can get exponentially better if
- Tesla figures out a way to solve the most probable edge cases first i.e. prioritization is very important
- Tesla doesn't start running out of enough training data / NN nodes
Similar threads
