Daniel in SD
(supervised)
They did report the 2016 demo video and the 2019 demo video (as L3 for unknown reasons). Their policy appears to be to report only when there is video evidence.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
Yes. Since there was video evidence and the demos were hands-free, I think they figured they had to report it. There is lots of video evidence of FSD beta but it is not hands-free so they don't report it. I think the hands-free part is what made them report it. But otherwise, they did go several years in a row reporting 0 autonomous miles.
EDIT: I think Tesla referred to the 2019 demo as L3 because they disabled the steering wheel nags for the demo.
Last edited:
Every single disengagement I have had is also not because of an inadequate sensor suite. It’s the decisions it made or (like stated above), mostly embarrassment so people are not waiting on me.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Yes they did, but nothing came of it (other than a prototype):
They also tried battery swapping in the past.
black knight 3
Member
Perhaps it would be San Mateo where a lot of the autopilot data labelers worked previously. There is a noticeable improvement in performance and reduced number of disengagements as compared to any other locale that I have used FSD in. I am referring specifically to that smaller area and not other parts of the SF bay area.
One possibility is that once they release and mature v11/single stack, Tesla "releases" L3 for highway driving (or perhaps for some geofenced highways). I agree that path planning and dealing with other complex scenarios can still be a struggle for FSD Beta. However the perception models in FSD Beta are so much more advanced than current AP, and highway driving is much simpler in comparison to city streets.
That said, I'm not sure what "releasing" L3 would mean - removing nags and driver monitoring? Getting regulatory approval? Accepting liability?
That said, I'm not sure what "releasing" L3 would mean - removing nags and driver monitoring? Getting regulatory approval? Accepting liability?
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
L3 would mean removing nags so that the driving can be hands-free but the human driver would be asked to take over when prompted. L3 would not remove driver monitoring. Driver monitoring would just shift to the internal camera. L3 would also mean that Tesla accepts liability when L3 is on, just like BMW and Mercedes accept liability for their L3.
Depends on the location.
They could very easily replace the current three-camera cluster with a different cluster that has two or three overlapping higher-resolution cameras, thus giving them stereo vision at a wider range of angles.
They could very easily replace the existing RADAR hardware with new/improved RADAR hardware. Not sure about cars that don't have RADAR, or how hard it would be to add the wiring harness after the fact if it doesn't exist, but it might not be too hard to do so underneath the frunk.
Or find a way to add the missing hardware as cheaply as possible, such as reusing existing wiring harnesses with new types of data flowing over them.
They stopped development on the automatic charger after Adrej(sp?) Karpathy accidentally bent over in front of it.Yes they did, but nothing came of it (other than a prototype):
They also tried battery swapping in the past.
Made him so mad he quit. On the plus side, he hasn't had to charge his cell phone ever since.
It could well be that the cost per unit for something that complex (times a dozen stalls), plus liability for damage caused by software bugs, additional insurance costs, etc. exceeds the cost of a single minimum-wage human employee per charging station over the expected life of the hardware....
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
....but a Drivers Licenses is for the person and NOT related to the vehicle. So in another state regardless of the vehicle they are driving the driver is required to obey that state's driving laws. Wouldn't this negate this and no loophole.
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
Well the L4 vehicle still has to obey state's driving laws. The person or the LCC that owns the vehicle could be held responsible for the driving of the vehicle. But this is all uncharted territory.
One reason why I think the US needs Federal AV safety and deployment regulations so that this could be straightened out. It would help with deployment as companies would know if their AVs are "good enough" for deployment. It would also help with any liability issues when AVs get into an accident.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
It would still have to obey the law that only L4 vehicles approved in the state can operate in the state.
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
Obviously, if the State had a law that required L4 to be approved by the State, then yes, it would need to obey that. But not all States have such a law.
scottf200
Well-Known Member
This guy did a great video overall but he found several videos about "Elon Time" - see that section
10:20 minutes in (620 secs) -
I wish Elon didn’t keep making these predictions on when FSD will arrive.
That being said, once it is here, almost no one will care that it was “late”.
Similar threads
