Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Clearly it did! Someone died and the driver could face manslaughter charges!
So, because they disabled AEB on their test car that makes it level 3? They could have just used a car that didn't have AEB.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
FSD email from Tesla (April 5, 2019)
- Thread starter fseir
- Start date
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
@Daniel in SD, you just need to agree that @Knightshade is correct about this and move on.
All Tesla needs to say is that FSD requires full driver attention at all times and that the driver is in control at all times. Then they have a level 2 system, which they call (marketing term) "FSD" (it's not "real" FSD, to be clear!). It'll be a system that requires hands on the wheel at all times and full attention as the people who bought it progress towards every traffic light, wondering if the car will stop. (And sometimes it won't.) Also Tesla will say it's in beta, and put all the same verbiage and disclaimers that they currently include in the Owner's Manual.
That's a level 2 system and requires no permits. It's not any different than the system they have today, at all. It's exactly the same as EAP, it just will have a few more features (reading signs, attempting to stop at traffic lights, navigating streets without yellow centerline markings, stop for pedestrians, etc. ). Should be exciting. Will be that way for several years I would think. But, the people who bought it will be sort of happy since they have features that others do not, even if they do not have what was promised (fortunately, most of the people who bought it don't expect much as far as I can tell - they just want a toy).
Getting back to the topic, I think unless there are specific regulations about level 2 in some states, as soon as the software provides a meaningful advantage they can roll the hardware out as Elon says. So it does seem like there might be a bit of a backlog as far as installs go. Not sure how many vehicles we're talking about here. Perhaps Tesla will be able to claim some geofencing is required initially even for the level 2 FSD additional features, but that seems a bit doubtful.
It's possible that additional regulations will be generated in response to incidents that you mention where people other than the driver of the Tesla are killed or injured. So that could introduce natural slowing of the rollout.
I'm not saying any of this is a good idea but I don't see how FSD isn't level 2 through and through. It has no elements of a level 3+ system at all.
EDIT: as far as level 3+ development for Tesla goes, FSD is of course sort of a dead end. The data level 2 FSD generates may be useful, I suppose (don't know anything about neural net training and validation), but in the end most likely Tesla will be forced to pursue an alternate parallel path where they actually do some level 3+ testing (with permits of course in California). But there's no rush on that as it's at least a few years away. They might even need better hardware in the cars to make that progression, anyway.
All Tesla needs to say is that FSD requires full driver attention at all times and that the driver is in control at all times. Then they have a level 2 system, which they call (marketing term) "FSD" (it's not "real" FSD, to be clear!). It'll be a system that requires hands on the wheel at all times and full attention as the people who bought it progress towards every traffic light, wondering if the car will stop. (And sometimes it won't.) Also Tesla will say it's in beta, and put all the same verbiage and disclaimers that they currently include in the Owner's Manual.
That's a level 2 system and requires no permits. It's not any different than the system they have today, at all. It's exactly the same as EAP, it just will have a few more features (reading signs, attempting to stop at traffic lights, navigating streets without yellow centerline markings, stop for pedestrians, etc. ). Should be exciting. Will be that way for several years I would think. But, the people who bought it will be sort of happy since they have features that others do not, even if they do not have what was promised (fortunately, most of the people who bought it don't expect much as far as I can tell - they just want a toy).
Getting back to the topic, I think unless there are specific regulations about level 2 in some states, as soon as the software provides a meaningful advantage they can roll the hardware out as Elon says. So it does seem like there might be a bit of a backlog as far as installs go. Not sure how many vehicles we're talking about here. Perhaps Tesla will be able to claim some geofencing is required initially even for the level 2 FSD additional features, but that seems a bit doubtful.
It's possible that additional regulations will be generated in response to incidents that you mention where people other than the driver of the Tesla are killed or injured. So that could introduce natural slowing of the rollout.
I'm not saying any of this is a good idea but I don't see how FSD isn't level 2 through and through. It has no elements of a level 3+ system at all.
EDIT: as far as level 3+ development for Tesla goes, FSD is of course sort of a dead end. The data level 2 FSD generates may be useful, I suppose (don't know anything about neural net training and validation), but in the end most likely Tesla will be forced to pursue an alternate parallel path where they actually do some level 3+ testing (with permits of course in California). But there's no rush on that as it's at least a few years away. They might even need better hardware in the cars to make that progression, anyway.
Last edited:
While the current system is level 2 as is, I dont see how you can say "it has no components of a level 3 system". It seems pretty obvious that the "hold the wheel" software feature is purely there for legal purposes. If Tesla could legally turn that off in the NoA no confirmation update, they would.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I doubt it. I'm pretty sure Tesla realizes the system is level 2! It could crash into something at literally any time. As evidenced by probably hundreds of reported incidents so far. It would be suicide to turn that off, for Tesla. And homicidal towards the driver (though legally it could be argued the driver was suicidal).
It would be pure insanity to drive a Tesla on EAP without 100% attention to the road. Attention, plus one hand on the wheel with the other ready to go. 9 and 3 positions are ideal. At least that's my opinion and my policy. EDIT: (It's still extremely useful even with those restrictions, especially on long drives)
A level 3 system can handle the driving tasks AND has to know when it does not understand. I don't see much evidence of the second part, and maybe only 95-99% of the first part. Level 3 is kind of a dead end anyway. It's way too dangerous; that's why Waymo went to level 4 or 5 or whatever.
Last edited:
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Haha. I will when someone explains the difference between driving Tesla "feature complete" FSD and testing a FSD car from another manufacturer.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
I have. Multiple times. Quoting exact text of both CA law and NHTSA reports on the Uber crash among other specifics.
I can explain it for you, I can't understand it for you.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
It's not a law, it's a regulation, you have to look at the intent. The intent was clearly not to allow testing of FSD without a permit. The exact same type of driver attention is required for a test driver as it is for someone driving a "feature complete" FSD Tesla.
I guess we'll see who's right soon enough.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I think it comes down to what you mean by "feature-complete" FSD. Features being complete may not equate to "activation and use" in Tesla's terminology on the website, even though they may be available for "trying out" in a level 2 system.
I believe Tesla can add as many features as they want as long as the driver is 100% responsible for monitoring the driving task (including requiring hands on the wheel and full attention at all times). It's really no different than EAP today, just with more features. One could argue that it is feature complete when all the components (features) are there, even if it is not functionally complete (in a level 3+ sense) because it is not truly "automatic" and requires 100% driver engagement.
So, driving a feature-complete FSD Tesla is just driving a level 2 vehicle with a lot of capabilities, in that tortured framework. You're not "testing" anything - you're just having the vehicle provide you with assistance for the driving task. It's totally different than FSD cars from other manufacturers that are actually able to perform the same driving tasks automatically (which might need to be tested - you'd need a permit for that testing in California, of course).
If by "feature complete" you mean that the features are "active", and the car really does perform "automatic driving on city streets" with "reliability far in excess of human drivers", without requiring human intervention (so it is "automatic" in the true sense), then the car would be fully tested already. There wouldn't be any further testing needed at that point. (Of course, I don't think there is any way to get to this point without a lot of testing, if it's even possible. I'm not sure how that testing will be done, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to do it, either - Waymo gave up on level 3, after all. So would be better to skip to level 4. And I have no idea what the correct path would be to validate this.) As is clear from my prior post, I don't think this is coming any time soon, so I have no clarity on this interpretation of "feature-complete FSD."
In neither case is any testing of FSD features being done by the Tesla customer.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
And Tesla won't be doing that.
They'll continue offering a L2 driving system marketed as part of the "FSD" package.
L2 driving systems by definition do not require a permit in CA.
No, it's not.
Feature-complete L2 won't be any different from the existing L2 EAP system Tesla has offered for years in CA without need for permits.
I'll make one more attempt to help you understand why you're wrong.
An L3 or higher system- what Waymo and Uber are testing, does not require driver attention when operating autonomously in its operational domain. At all.
CA law requires a driver to monitor the system if driven on public roads in CA, but that has nothing to do with the actual system which is designed and intended to not require driver attention because it's an L3 or higher system.
Teslas system on the other hand explicitly requires driver attention at all times...it's a collection of level 2 driver assist features, not an autonomous driving feature. At no time is the system intended to be operated without driver attention, in any domain.
What anyone "calls" it doesn't change the distinction above. How much monitoring CAs regulations call for on L3+ cars doesn't either.
That's why Tesla doesn't need permits to roll out "FSD" features that are simply L2....and why Waymo and Uber need permits to test systems that are L3 and higher.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
If you want to talk about he intent of the designers of the system, the intent of Tesla FSD is to be a level 5 system. Elon Musk has clearly stated that many times. Just in February:
I don't see how anyone can interpret that as not being intended as a level 5 system.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
BTW Uber tried to make the same argument you're making, that they were merely testing a driver assistance feature, and the DMV cancelled all their registrations.
After Uber defied California’s DMV, the DMV revoked Uber’s registrations
After Uber defied California’s DMV, the DMV revoked Uber’s registrations
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Because it doesn't currently do any of the things that define a level 5 system. And still won't by end of the year when it's rolled out as a level 2 system.
You seem to not understand the difference between marketing/PR talk and the actual product features and function.
Even Elon made this point, very clearly, in recent discussion about it- that their end goal is to offer a real L5 system, but that would NOT be what anyone gets this year.
Instead they'll be getting an L2 driver assist system, much like the one everyone has today without need for certifications, but it will operate in more places. Nothing about the level of the system will change. At all.
A level change won't come until after regulation stuff is worked out (ie all or most states have regulations on this- because they're not going to try and turn features on/off based on what state line you might cross)
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
I'm just going on what Tesla says they're going to release this year.
That's a level 5 system. Uber also claimed that their system was a level 2 system and the DMV didn't agree. I'm wondering what features and functions Tesla's system will be missing that will convince them otherwise.
If the level of the system only changes after the system is approved then there would be no need for testing rules. I am curious what you think the purpose of the testing rules are.
I'm happy that you will be able to work out all the bugs in the system before it's released in California
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Uh, no.
Guess what comes right after your quote?
It's him specifically telling you you are incorrect
Elon Musk said:
He mentions the system will require human supervision as it won't be able to work safely without it
Which means it's still a level 2 system.
It's not L3 or higher until it works in some domains without needing a human at all to operate safely.
Indeed. The same DMV who agrees Teslas is a level 2 system. Thanks for reinforcing my point
The fact Teslas system will still require the same supervision but work more places does not change that at all.
The same ones they're missing right now. The ability to operate safely without a human for the entirety of the dynamic driving task in one or more domains.
It doesn't do that though.
Why do you keep making up your own nonsense definitions of system levels when the SAE and CA regulations already have clear ones laid out?
Can someone tag me in this thread if it gets back on topic and somehow interesting instead of being an ouroboros of “NO UR WRONG”
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Every level 3-5 system in development required a driver when being tested. This does not disprove that the driver is testing FSD.
Tesla's is but I'm talking about FSD. That's exactly the same argument that Uber made, that their system was exactly the same as Tesla's but worked more places. There is a point where a driver assist system becomes testing of FSD, I believe that common sense says that when you're using a system that is "feature complete" "driving on city streets" then you are testing FSD.Indeed. The same DMV who agrees Teslas is a level 2 system. Thanks for reinforcing my point
The fact Teslas system will still require the same supervision but work more places does not change that at all.
As I keep saying, no system can do that when you first start developing it. Every system subject to the testing rules requires a human driver. It really seems like you're saying that the only thing that determines whether you are testing FSD under California rules is whether you claim that your system requires human supervision or not.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Once again you are confusing two entirely different things.
no level 5 system requires a driver
By definition
What requires a driver is CA law on testing L3+ cars
The car does not require the driver. CAs regulations do.
Those are totally different and unrelated things
You've been corrected on this at least 3 times now.
Except, again, that's factually wrong.
Ubers system is not the same
if it were the same they wouldn't have needed permits.
I even quoted from the NHTSA investigation where they found that was so (car driving mode turned off human safety features and did not notify the human driver to do anything in situations that should have had a human step in as 2 examples of differences)
You again are not understanding the difference between marketing terms and actual system function and scope
Luckily CA regulators do understand this difference, which is why Tesla hasn't needed any additional permission for their L2 features, and won't need any when FSD at L2 comes out later this year either.
You are again confusing regulation requirements with system requirements.
CA regulations require a human driver for L3, L4, and L5 systems. This has nothing to do with the level classification of the system in and of itself- it's simply a CA requirement when using a system of L3 or higher.
The actual driving systems don't require a human driver- to varying different degrees. That is what makes them L3+ systems
Teslas system, current, and what they plan to roll out by end of year, always require a human driver. Which means it's L2, at best.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
@run-the-joules the crossfire seems to have died down. (In war, there are no winners.)
But, I would imagine it's going to be a long wait (I'd estimate 6-9 months) for the HW3 retrofits based on Elon's tweet. I want my spoiler first; I paid good money for it and it provides a tangible benefit today! If they could just figure out how to stick it on properly... You FSD guys will need to get in line.
Similar threads
