FSD fails to detect children in the road

[Singuy]

FSD beta is a beta L5 system. It requires monitoring because it doesn’t work very well (yet).
This is my opinion, it’s very controversial around here.

Who claimed it's a L5 system? Tesla certainly haven't, nor their DMV registration, nor is part of any L5 definition.
The goal is to eventually evolve it into a L5 system but everyone and their mother beside trolls fully understand it's a L2 system today.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

It gets worse if you venture over to the Investors' Roundtable. Children never get hit by cars, apparently, it's not even an edge case. Wow, I really wonder how someone can actually think like this; or at least let's hope they aren't in charge of any safety systems. Check out these quotes:


{I altered the bold emphasis in the quote}

These are all very rich individuals, most likely, and they know what is best for Tesla. They know that the niche putative L2 system has excellent viral potential when “completed” and poses minimal risk to Tesla.

It’ll be interesting to see if it increases safety; we will all find out together in a few years, assuming the whole enterprise is not shut down by state regulators who decide the approach to selling it is not acceptable.

Personally, until peer review demonstrates a strong safety benefit in general use, I think they should allow just three strikes before a 6-month disablement, and after one strike require a 5-minute procedure showing horrendous automation-involved crash videos and clicking through text boxes while in Park, to enable FSD City Streets for each drive, for three months after each strike. Documented hardware failures excluded. It is very difficult to get a strike, and possibly impossible to get a false strike.

People are constantly asking Elon on Twitter for a strike reset, and it makes me so so happy (is that weird? I think it is weird…), and I hope it never happens. I know that there are people who have struggled with documented hardware failures and they should be reinstated, even though they should never have exceeded one strike.

 

[Singuy]

These are all very rich individuals, most likely, and they know what is best for Tesla. They know that the niche putative L2 system has excellent viral potential when “completed” and poses minimal risk to Tesla.

It’ll be interesting to see if it increases safety; we will all find out together in a few years, assuming the whole enterprise is not shut down by state regulators who decide the approach to selling it is not acceptable.

Personally, until peer review demonstrates a strong safety benefit in general use, I think they should allow just three strikes before a 6-month disablement, and after one strike require a 5-minute procedure showing horrendous automation-involved crash videos and clicking through text boxes while in Park, to enable FSD City Streets for each drive, for three months after each strike. Documented hardware failures excluded. It is very difficult to get a strike, and possibly impossible to get a false strike.

People are constantly asking Elon on Twitter for a strike reset, and it makes me so so happy (is that weird? I think it is weird…), and I hope it never happens. I know that there are people who have struggled with documented hardware failures and they should be reinstated, even though they should never have exceeded one strike.

I don't understand why there's any doubt that Tesla's L2 system doesn't increase safety. As someone who works overnight, the number of times I almost died in my 2013 jaguar without lane keep assist due to drowsiness can't be understated. People who drive long distances all felt drowsy before. I have seen cars veer into oncoming traffic because they are texting. People will fall asleep and text with or without autopilot. I know I'll be a lot safer on the road if I know the person heading straight at me on the opposing lane is on autopilot and texting than not. JB's wife was killed because the truck driver fell asleep.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I don't understand why there's any doubt that Tesla's L2 system doesn't increase safety. As someone who works overnight, the number of times I almost died in my 2013 jaguar without lane keep assist due to drowsiness can't be understated. People who drive long distances all felt drowsy before. I have seen cars veer into oncoming traffic because they are texting. People will fall asleep and text with or without autopilot. I know I'll be a lot safer on the road if I know the person heading straight at me on the opposing lane is on autopilot and texting than not.

There is no question it will prevent accidents (like the ones you describe). The question is whether that will be offset by new accidents that would not otherwise occur. It’s hard to know. I happen to think it will be a net benefit if properly and strictly monitored (and have to be sure the monitoring long term does not actually make things worse by preventing use (would depend on system capability) but it is ok during evaluation stage), but data is required.

Also the benefits of such a system on city streets likely differ significantly from the impact on safety on interstate highways both due to the types of accidents that occur and the system capabilities.

 

[j0shm1lls]

Who claimed it's a L5 system? Tesla certainly haven't, nor their DMV registration, nor is part of any L5 definition.
The goal is to eventually evolve it into a L5 system but everyone and their mother beside trolls fully understand it's a L2 system today.

Its hyperbole based on Elon saying he thought they might have L5 solved by X time, some time ago.

 

[emmz0r]

Another "edge case" found. Can you spot the trick?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1559315712614727681

Whole Mars is right except that it's not an ADAS, it's a beta of FSD (aka Tesla Robotaxi)
I really think this a fundamental weakness to the approach of training a NN with human labeled video. I think you're going to need some sort of unrecognized object recognition to achieve greater than human performance (reliable crashed UFO detection as Elon described).

The trick is the car will not brake message in the bottom? why is there always a message there

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The trick is the car will not brake message in the bottom? why is there always a message there

There's no way I can tell what that says, no matter how many people on the internet say that's what it says. We just need a better video (there's no excuse for the poor video quality). And it's terrible that there is always a message there (it was even there at the beginning of the video, which suggests it's NOT the braking message - it's perhaps some other malfunction which may or may not be relevant).

I think the trick is that the dummy is less than 34" tall (which is an allegation made here today which I don't think has been independently reproduced yet by a friendly party).

 

[Dan D.]

These are all very rich individuals, most likely, and they know what is best for Tesla. They know that the niche putative L2 system has excellent viral potential when “completed” and poses minimal risk to Tesla.

I've always felt that rich individuals know what's best for themselves. If FSD got banned, Tesla started to falter and the stock threatened to plummet, I'll bet the rich investors will jump ship and all end up on the forum of the next star performer. The fanbois may stick it out.

 

[j0shm1lls]

The trick is the car will not brake message in the bottom? why is there always a message there

The message is either "Cruise control will not brake" (due to accelerator being depressed) OR the "moving away from cones" message, either way its bigfoot levels of blurry so its pretty impossible to read.

 

[emmz0r]

There's no way I can tell what that says, no matter how many people on the internet say that's what it says. We just need a better video (there's no excuse for the poor video quality). And it's terrible that there is always a message there (it was even there at the beginning of the video, which suggests it's NOT the braking message - it's perhaps some other malfunction which may or may not be relevant).

I think the trick is that the dummy is less than 34" tall (which is an allegation made here today which I don't think has been independently reproduced yet by a friendly party).

The message is either "Cruise control will not brake" (due to accelerator being depressed) OR the "moving away from cones" message, either way its bigfoot levels of blurry so its pretty impossible to read.

Since there is no excuse for this, and he clearly wants to show that FSD is engaged, I assume it's blurry on purpose, which leads me to believe that it is "Cruise control will not brake"

 

[2101Guy]

Who claimed it's a L5 system? Tesla certainly haven't,

You sure?

Elon Musk says Tesla's Full Self-Driving tech will have Level 5 autonomy by the end of 2021

Tesla's CEO also confirmed that customers won't be able to transfer previous FSD purchases between old and new cars.

www.cnet.com

 

[mongo]

I don’t think it was intentional to obfuscate those details since they were not effectively obfuscated. The only thing that is uncertain is messages on the screen and the only one that is relevant on test #2 is completely impossible to see. Probably something to do with signaling but not sure.

Oh, it probably was intentional. To kill foreground depth of field while leaving long range clear, you need a camera with a large aperture and close placement. A GoPro (like the one used under the bumper) could have caputured the full scene.

Edit: went to the prior page, which I had not read, to see if I missed anything, and once again, there is just this statement, which makes no claim about FSD actually being used correctly. It is only a statement about the mode the car is in, not whether it is being used correctly. Very carefully worded!
“The 2019 Tesla Model 3 with FSD Beta 10.12.2 was in full self-driving mode, in the
manner instructed by the owner's manual (as provided in Exhibits A & C) during all
portions of the June 21, 2022 video shoot where the car was being tested to see if it
recognized the child-size mannequin in its path.”

The manner instructed by the owner's manual (Exhibit A or C) is to have hand on the wheel. Hands off means it was NOT used correctly.

Of course, you could argue that Tesla should recognize children shorter than 34", so they can, and probably will, improve this.

Agree.

It looks standard to me. Unsupervised little kids can stand in the middle of empty streets, and that's not unusual.

There is little kids, and then there is barely walking.
I would hope that toddlers (1-3 year) standing alone in the street is unusual.

30.5"50th percentile is 14 months, 34" is 22 months (male), 15/25 for female.
By 36 months, over 97% of children are over 34 inches tall.

 

[Singuy]

You sure?

Elon Musk says Tesla's Full Self-Driving tech will have Level 5 autonomy by the end of 2021

Tesla's CEO also confirmed that customers won't be able to transfer previous FSD purchases between old and new cars.

www.cnet.com

Elon says a lot of things, but Tesla the company make no such claims anywhere.

Also Elon have never definitively said anything that is binding. It's always "I am fairly confident" or "I'll be surprised if" or "it's tracking that we will".

 

[MP3Mike]

I think the trick is that the dummy is less than 34" tall (which is an allegation made here today which I don't think has been independently reproduced yet by a friendly party).

Well the person that reported the 34" limit is friendly. (And is someone that worked on the original AP1 team.) Though it certainly wouldn't hurt for someone to replicate his results.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The manner instructed by the owner's manual (Exhibit A or C) is to have hand on the wheel. Hands off means it was NOT used correctly.

This is just the way English works. It’s a statement about how the car was put into FSD mode (it was put into FSD mode in that manner!!!), according to the manual, not a statement about how it was used or what the driver was doing. That’s why they wrote the affidavit that way. There are plenty of other ways to write it which would clearly give the meaning you state. But they did not do that because that is not what they meant (and it would be incorrect and inconsistent with the affidavit which says the hands were off the wheel).

Anyway. Intentional, and a correct and truthful affidavit (albeit misleading in several ways of course).

 

[MP3Mike]

This is just the way English works. It’s a statement about how the car was put into FSD mode (it was put into FSD mode in that manner!!!), according to the manual, not a statement about how it was used or what the driver was doing. That’s why they wrote the affidavit that way. There are plenty of other ways to write it which would clearly give the meaning you state. But they did not do that because that is not what they meant (and it would be incorrect and inconsistent with the affidavit which says the hands were off the wheel).

Anyway. Intentional, and a correct and truthful affidavit (albeit misleading in several ways of course).

I have to disagree with you here, that isn't what it says, the word "put" is not in there:

It says that it "was in full self-driving mode, in the manner instructed by the owner's manual (as provided in Exhibts A & C) during all portions of the June 21, 2022 video shoot where the car was being tested..." The part where he shows his hands off the wheel is "during portions of the June 21, 2022 video shoot" and that is not as instructed in the manual.

No where does it say it was put into the mode correctly. And if that is what they meant what would the "during all portions of the .. video shoot" mean?

 

[2101Guy]

Elon says a lot of things, but Tesla the company make no such claims anywhere.

Also Elon have never definitively said anything that is binding. It's always "I am fairly confident" or "I'll be surprised if" or "it's tracking that we will".

Legally binding? You might be right. (depending on the outcome of the various legal/regulatory actions around deceptive marketing practices currently underway).

That aside, one could infer that this is just one example of him being a bit more than just confident/not suprised/tracking:


"Next year for sure, we will have over a million robotaxis on the road," said Musk on October 21, 2019. "The fleet wakes up with an over-the-air update. That's all it takes."

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

have to disagree with you here, that isn't what it says, the word "put" is not in there:

I’ve posted about this before. Put not being there (I did not go back and reread my prior post where I responded to your post where I detail it) [EDIT: the word put IS there, of course, in another section, so I will add a disagree] does not change my point, of course. It is a statement of the state of the vehicle, clearly.

That’s why they wrote it that way!!!

See my post above, there are two sections, the second one includes “put” (my memory did not fail me!), but it does not matter. It’s all the same gymnastics.

Just English language details. Annoying but correct. There’s just no way to read those statements as a statement about the driver using FSD correctly, because that’s not what they say. It does not talk about the driver’s use of FSD! The subject is the vehicle in the portion you quoted.

FSD fails to detect children in the road

 

[Daniel in SD]

Who claimed it's a L5 system? Tesla certainly haven't, nor their DMV registration, nor is part of any L5 definition.
The goal is to eventually evolve it into a L5 system but everyone and their mother beside trolls fully understand it's a L2 system today.

I'm claiming it. FSD beta is no different than what any other AV company is doing.
The design intent is to be robotaxi software. How could an L2 system be a robotaxi when it goes to wide release?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1450868052040507392

 

[2101Guy]

did someone just type above that its ok if only 3% if kids are run over by FSD.