FSD - Level 2

[shrineofchance]

In the email exchange, the interlocutors repeatedly distinguish between a) the “pilot release” or “limited release” or “early release” and b) the “full release” or “final public release” or “final release”.

It should be obvious what distinction they’re drawing. It’s a) Early Access vs. b) fleet-wide.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

In the email exchange, the interlocutors repeatedly distinguish between a) the “pilot release” or “limited release” or “early release” and b) the “full release” or “final public release” or “final release”.

It should be obvious what distinction they’re drawing. It’s a) Early Access vs. b) fleet-wide.

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding your point here. They are saying the full release to the fleet, which will be final (but not actually literally final as discussed), will be an SAE Level 2 system. What is your point exactly? What is the disagreement? You seem to be disagreeing with posts which contain the same opinions as your posts.

"While the current pilot version of City Streets is still in a validation and review stage, we expect the functionality to remain largely unchanged in a future, full release to the customer fleet. We are analyzing the data obtained in the pilot and using it to refine the feature’s operation and customer experience. We will continue to make refinements as necessary, and only after we are fully satisfied with performance, integrity, and safety will we release the feature to the customer fleet. That said, we do not expect significant enhancements in OEDR or other changes to the feature that would shift the responsibility for the entire DDT to the system. As such, a final release of City Streets will continue to be an SAE Level 2, advanced driver-assistance feature."

Again, this text clearly isn't suggesting that literally this will be the final release, and it doesn't eliminate the possibility of L4+ in the future, to the fleet. It just means that for this embodiment being tested currently, which is intended to be released to the fleet, the final form will be level 2.

 

[shrineofchance]

even though they're not technically developing a L3+ system at this time.

This is just wrong:

“Please note that Tesla’s development of true autonomous features (SAE Levels 3+) will follow our iterative process (development, validation, early release, etc.) and any such features will not be released to the general public until we have fully validated them and received any required regulatory permits or approvals.”

The DMV is asking about what some customers are currently driving — the FSD City Streets beta — and what all or most customers will have the option of driving (potentially) imminently.

Excerpt from another Tesla letter to the California DMV:

 

[diplomat33]

The DMV email is really just Tesla protecting themselves from legal troubles. The CA DMV is basically like "so what's this FSD Beta we keep hearing about? Tesla is not testing autonomous driving on the general public without reporting it, are you?" And the Tesla lawyer is like "No, nothing to worry about. We are just testing a L2 system. It's not autonomous and it won't be autonomous when we release it to the public. Any autonomous driving features we do develop, we will make sure to tell you and fully test and validate before."

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

This is just wrong:

This is what I meant by "technically" - there is no autonomous testing going on per the DMV definition - perhaps I should have clarified that I meant technically, at the current time (I did say "at this time"!!!), but I've made it abundantly obvious in my other posts that Tesla is working towards and developing L3+. So there's no disagreement here as far as I am concerned. It's just clear that Tesla doesn't think they currently need to do actual road testing for their L3+ development. It doesn't mean they're not developing L3+ - as I have made very very clear. They HAVE to be developing L3+; it's very important for the company to be doing so. And that's completely consistent with Autosteer on City Streets being L2 for its final release to the fleet, for the current embodiment.

I continue to be confused by the disagrees! From context, this technicality, which is what the DMV cares most about, is what matters. That's why I said "technically." If I had meant that Tesla was not developing L3+, I would have said, "Tesla is literally not working on L3+ at all." (Which would be false.)

They're able to tiptoe a very fine line with the DMV and get a lot of beneficial information for their ongoing development, even though they're not technically developing a L3+ system at this time.

 

[shrineofchance]

The DMV email is really just Tesla protecting themselves from legal troubles. The CA DMV is basically like "so what's this FSD Beta we keep hearing about? Tesla is not testing autonomous driving on the general public without reporting it, are you?" And the Tesla lawyer is like "No, nothing to worry about. We are just testing a L2 system. It's not autonomous and it won't be autonomous when we release it to the public. Any autonomous driving features we do develop, we will make sure to tell you and fully test and validate before."

Yes, exactly. This is just mundane, boilerplate legal assurances and not newsworthy or noteworthy. We already knew FSD Beta was Level 2 and will continue to be upon public release and this email merely reiterates that fact.

Which is why headlines like this are absolute bullshit:

And it's why anyone on this forum or on Twitter who thinks these emails indicate some kind of underhanded scheme or change of plans from Tesla versus what Elon has publicly stated is mistaken.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Yes, exactly. This is just mundane, boilerplate legal assurances and not newsworthy or noteworthy. We already knew FSD Beta was Level 2 and will continue to be upon public release and this email merely reiterates that fact.

Which is why headlines like this are absolute bullshit:

And it's why anyone on this forum or on Twitter who thinks these emails indicate some kind of underhanded scheme or change of plans from Tesla versus what Elon has publicly stated is mistaken.

Agreed! Which is why I don't understand the disagrees, lol.

 

[shrineofchance]

A December 2017 letter to the California DMV provides further clarification (my emphasis):

"For Reporting Year 2017, Tesla did not test any vehicles on public roads in California in autonomous mode, as defined by California law. As such, the Company did not experience any autonomous mode disengagements as part of the Autonomous Vehicle Tester Program in California.

As described above, Tesla analyzes data from billions of miles of driving received from our customer fleet via over-the-air (“OTA”) transmissions. We supplement this with data collected from testing of our engineering fleet in non-autonomous mode, and from autonomous testing that is done in other settings, including on public roads in various other locations around the world."

Tesla is only required to disclose to the California DMV any driving that happens in fully autonomous mode within California.

 

[run-the-joules]

Yes, exactly. This is just mundane, boilerplate legal assurances and not newsworthy or noteworthy. We already knew FSD Beta was Level 2 and will continue to be upon public release and this email merely reiterates that fact.

Which is why headlines like this are absolute bullshit:



And it's why anyone on this forum or on Twitter who thinks these emails indicate some kind of underhanded scheme or change of plans from Tesla versus what Elon has publicly stated is mistaken.

It's probably because we've been burned by Elon's BS so many times that it's becoming easier and easier to think that they're actively trying to screw us at this point than anything else.

The handling of FSD is beginning to dull Hanlon's Razor.

I don't personally have any strong feelings on this email situation, since I distrust blogtards roughly to the same extent that I distrust Elon.

 

[shrineofchance]

I don't understand the disagrees

For this, which was annoying:

It doesn't say "initial full," for the record, it says "final release of City Streets will continue to be an SAE Level 2, advanced driver-assistance feature"

If I was quoting the email, I would have used quote marks. I didn't use quote marks for "initial full", so I was not quoting it. The fact is, Tesla was referring to (in my words) the initial full release or initial public release of FSD City Streets. The email doesn't say "the initial full release will be SAE Level 2", but that wasn't my claim. My claim was that the email said that the initial full release will be SAE Level 2.

In other words, I was paraphrasing or interpreting the letter, not quoting it, and you "corrected" me as if I was quoting it, which is annoying.

And for this:

they're not technically developing a L3+ system at this time.

Which is just incorrect, except perhaps in the most tortured, ad hoc stretching of the plain meaning of words.

 

[Dan D.]

It's probably because we've been burned by Elon's BS so many times that it's becoming easier and easier to think that they're actively trying to screw us at this point than anything else.

The handling of FSD is beginning to dull Hanlon's Razor.

I don't personally have any strong feelings on this email situation, since I distrust blogtards roughly to the same extent that I distrust Elon.

My corollary to the point about whether "Final" meant Final or Initial but not final was whether they would continue to support Hardware and Software updates until Level 4+ has been reached. Some discussion in the preceding 70 posts appears to have lead to a feeling that pre-2019 there was an implicit promise that Tesla did indeed imply your FSD purchase would get you a Level 4+ car (eventually).

So let's decide that point then. Does Tesla have a duty to continue to update pre-2019 purchases of FSD in perpetuity until those cars have reached Level 4+? And therefore do they have no duty to continue to update 2019+ purchases of FSD until they have reached Level 4+?

 

[Tam]

And it's why anyone on this forum or on Twitter who thinks these emails indicate some kind of underhanded scheme or change of plans from Tesla versus what Elon has publicly stated is mistaken.

But it does look like a scheme to get out of mandatory disengagement reporting.

Uber said its fleet was L2 just like Tesla's fleet that required a human in 2016 so it should not be subject to mandatory disengagement reporting:

"This is not actually an autonomous vehicle because we're launching with a test driver," Uber executive Lior Ron told CNN. "This is sort of similar to a Tesla autopilot or any sort of adaptive cruise control you would find on the road today. You need to have the vehicle operator in the car at all times."

Technically, both Tesla's and Uber's scheme makes sense. Their cars have still required a human driver so they are not actually L3, thus, no need for mandatory disengagement reporting.

It didn't work for Uber in 2016 as CA DMV still insisted that it had to report all of the disengagements.

Uber blows off regulators, tests self-driving Volvos in California

Uber doesn't believe it needs a permit from the state DMV to test its SUVs.

money.cnn.com

What new with Tesla letters are now just the same old recycled rationale borrowed from 2016 Uber's excuses.

It didn't work then for Uber, but somehow, try again, and it seems to work now for Tesla!

It's magic!

 

[run-the-joules]

My corollary to the point about whether "Final" meant Final or Initial but not final was whether they would continue to support Hardware and Software updates until Level 4+ has been reached. Some discussion in the preceding 70 posts appears to have lead to a feeling that pre-2019 there was an implicit promise that Tesla did indeed imply your FSD purchase would get you a Level 4+ car (eventually).

So let's decide that point then. Does Tesla have a duty to continue to update pre-2019 purchases of FSD in perpetuity until those cars have reached Level 4+?

In my mind, yes, but I'm biased in my favor and always will be. They said I'll be able to take long and short trips with no action by the person in the driving seat. That means I don't have to pay attention, nor keep my hand on the wheel, nor take over. That's L4.

And therefore do they have no duty to continue to update 2019+ purchases of FSD until they have reached Level 4+?

The page still says "no action" by the person in the driver's seat, so…

 

[shrineofchance]

Does Tesla have a duty to continue to update pre-2019 purchases of FSD in perpetuity until those cars have reached Level 4+?

Yes.

 

[shrineofchance]

But it does look like a scheme to get out of mandatory disengagement reporting.

Uber said its fleet was L2 just like Tesla's fleet that required a human in 2016 so it should not be subject to mandatory disengagement reporting:

"This is not actually an autonomous vehicle because we're launching with a test driver," Uber executive Lior Ron told CNN. "This is sort of similar to a Tesla autopilot or any sort of adaptive cruise control you would find on the road today. You need to have the vehicle operator in the car at all times."

Technically, both Tesla's and Uber's scheme makes sense. Their cars have still required a human driver so they are not actually L3, thus, no need for mandatory disengagement reporting.

It didn't work for Uber in 2016 as CA DMV still insisted that it had to report all of the disengagements.

What new with Tesla letters are now just the same old recycled rationale borrowed from 2016 Uber's excuses.


It didn't work then for Uber, but somehow, try again, and it seems to work now for Tesla!

Two key differences:

1) Autopilot actually is a commercial product whose use by the general public is permitted in California.

2) Autopilot requires drivers to keep their hands on the wheel and will shut off if they don't. Uber's test drivers didn't keep their hands on the wheel and, AFAIK, didn't have any sort of system to try to ensure test drivers were actually still in control of the vehicle and paying attention.

 

[Dan D.]

2) Autopilot requires drivers to keep their hands on the wheel and will shut off if they don't. Uber's test drivers didn't keep their hands on the wheel and, AFAIK, didn't have any sort of system to try to ensure test drivers were actually still in control of the vehicle and paying attention.

Nothing live no. Just a poorly implemented safety plan. From the Uber crash NTSB report (HAR1903):

ATG Advanced Technologies Group (Uber) stated that terminal managers randomly examined videos from the inward-facing cameras as a spot-check on vehicle operators’ adherence to company policies.

Investigators did not find any evidence that ATG had examined video recordings of the crash-involved vehicle operator before the Tempe crash. She was never reported by a peer and did not receive any disciplinary actions during her employment. When interviewed, her supervisor did not report reviewing any videos of the operator
...
Since the crash, ATG has made changes in its oversight of vehicle operators and in operator training (see section 1.9).

Note: various improvements were listed such as:

1.9.2.2 ... an inward-facing camera that monitors the attentiveness of a mission specialist in the driver’s seat. When the system detects that a driver’s seat mission specialist has looked away from the road for several seconds, it sounds a chime. At the same time, the system sends a report to the mission specialist’s supervisor, who examines the video and determines whether action is needed.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Yes.

EDIT: Whoops...just realized this was in reference to pre-2019...yes, definitely agreed; they seem obligated to do anything they can to make the vehicles capable of L4+ if they have L4+ development complete.

For post-2019:
Agreed that they will, though I don't think it is a duty. For example, they will do this, assuming there are no hardware limitations for vehicles sold after early 2019. There's no duty for them to do hardware upgrades to achieve higher functionality, assuming they have already delivered L2 Autosteer on City Streets. Anything that is software only I think they're likely to just push out, as long as the user agrees to and complies with any conditions of use.

Which is just incorrect, except perhaps in the most tortured, ad hoc stretching of the plain meaning of words.

Context is important! I think in context it wasn't tortured at all. I even said they had ongoing development in the same sentence.

Regarding other testing elsewhere: While it's true that they could be testing somewhere else that has no rules on autonomous vehicle testing, are you aware that they are doing so anywhere worldwide? I haven't heard that they are, and based on their comments about shadow mode, etc., I don't think they feel it is necessary at the current time. Regardless of whether there are actual laws in place in the locale where the testing takes place, it is still a risky endeavor and I doubt they would take it on at this point.

 

[bobleland]

Would it be possible to make the driver intervention seamless with the autopilot/FSD? Switching between autopilot and driver followed by the driver double pulling the stalk to reengage the autopilot/FSD manually seems like too many mental steps.

 

[shrineofchance]

While it's true that they could be testing somewhere else that has no rules on autonomous vehicle testing, are you aware that they are doing so anywhere worldwide?

See the above:

A December 2017 letter to the California DMV provides further clarification (my emphasis):

"For Reporting Year 2017, Tesla did not test any vehicles on public roads in California in autonomous mode, as defined by California law. As such, the Company did not experience any autonomous mode disengagements as part of the Autonomous Vehicle Tester Program in California.

As described above, Tesla analyzes data from billions of miles of driving received from our customer fleet via over-the-air (“OTA”) transmissions. We supplement this with data collected from testing of our engineering fleet in non-autonomous mode, and from autonomous testing that is done in other settings, including on public roads in various other locations around the world."

Tesla is only required to disclose to the California DMV any driving that happens in fully autonomous mode within California.

 

[Battpower]

As a UK based FSD owner, the role of regulatory involvement is obviously a massive factor in how the FSD landscape maps out and imo gives Tesla a complete get-out if they need one. Just fail to satisfy the regulatory requirements and you have your pre-disclosed reason for FSD not happening at a given time.

I am not suggesting that Tesla is in fact playing the game this way, but it does make the discussion somewhat moot.

From all the discussions here, the point that stands out most for me is that even in its current guise, weather, dirty cameras, rapid unpredictable formation of condensation on cameras, systemic and persistent phantom braking events and other map data & sign misreading issues and the like all mean that there is little evidence IN MY EXPERIENCE to suggest that the current hardware is anywhere near ready for or capable of unassisted / unsupervised operation. That isn't a big deal though for me. I will feel that I got value for money if the car can read the road ahead, drive around bends as well as a human driver, consistently maintain safe positioning and speed on most roads and allow safe, consistent advanced cruise control functions on freeways.

There is also a considerable industry interest and growth in V2x communication technology to allow automated road users to communicate locally. This would not be happening if there wasn't a need and current Tesla vehicles do not incorporate such capabilities.

IMO there is no point bashing Tesla for their FSD mission or even their progress to date, but I do feel that there is a point at which marketing claims made to extract money from customers do need to be held up and challenged. The ultimate self-delivering excuse of failing to meet regulatory approval at any particular performance level should not be allowed to become the justification for non-delivery on the basic functionality 'sold'.

Based on that I am fine with Tesla keeping the DMV and any other regulatory body off their backs by focussing on how they are working within existing rules as long as Tesla honor the essence of the 'promises' made. With regards to any obligation to keep hardware updated as needed, I think there is a clear moral obligation and probably a bigger technical one, since you can't really introduce new 'required' hardware while denying access to early adopters if required to meet the original stated performance objectives. Since - if anything - those objectives have been watered down from the first heady claims, it would seem that the most demanding requirements are actually with early buyers.