I think the point has been missed, not that I agree. It's driving, he's saying neither one can "drive". But this smaller than pin point focus on what the word driving means is rediculous.
What the word means has not just major engineering but also
legal significance.
Hence why I remain baffled by the folks insisting "bah, the actual law and engineering are just semantics!"
Again try that in a courtroom and see how that works for you.
Ok, so if there is a wheel and seat weight in place, in a non-cabin camera vehicle, and someone sets the nav and starts it from outside through the window, if it isn't driving itself around the block, what exactly is the car doing?
If I put a brick on a gas pedal and let the car go, is the brick now driving? Or is perhaps the act of driving more complex in reality than 'anything that makes a car move'?
In the microcosm of ADS ADAS ADHD ASD, driving means driving task: means a car that doesn't reliably detect all objects and such does not fulfill the requirements of Level 3 ADS: and thus is not categorized as driving (in that context).
Human drivers also fail at this
Mostly accurate with one correction---- a system able to drive must have the CAPABILITY of doing all parts of the driving task completely. It's not required to do so with 100% accuracy.
Humans CAN perform all the sub-tasks of the dynamic driving task-- even if they occasionally make a mistake-- and do so in all conditions a normal human can safely drive. Thus humans are the equivalent of L5 under SAE rules.
Waymos system CAN perform all the sub-tasks of the dynamic driving task-- even if they occasionally make a mistake-- and can also perform the DDT fallback task-- but they are limited by an ODD. Thus Waymo is L4 under SAE rules. Waymos system is the driver when engaged.
Teslas FSD
can not perform all the sub-tasks of the dynamic driving task-- and also makes mistakes in the ones they CAN automate--- Thus Teslas system is L2 under SAE rules. The HUMAN is
always the driver in such a system because the car can. not. drive.
It's
not at all a case of "Tesla just needs to make less mistakes to be >L2" as some here seem to keep suggesting.
it's "Tesla needs to add multiple actual entire complete features to be >L2 and ever actually drive in any legal or engineering sense"
The really weird part is all the stuff I write above about Teslas system is the same thing
Tesla themselves tells you.
Rather than
believe Tesla people want to invent their own imaginary narratives and definitions of things.
Perhaps unlike most people here I really appreciate Knightshade's attention to technical correctness, but I think in this argument there is a lot of talking past each other. Knightshade is making a absolutely technically correct argument as it pertains to the definition of driving by autonomous vehicles. By that reasoning yes obviously Waymo is better at driving than FSDb because FSDb can't even do it at all.
Appreciate the kind words, and yes, that's an accurate representation of the point being made.
But as I recall (and might be misremembering) that wasn't really the intent of the original statement that launched this argument. I think that poster's consideration is more about the end result of the systems capabilities to maneuver the vehicle. If you put a Waymo vehicle outside it's geofence, it will not be able to move the vehicle at all due to lack of HD Maps etc..
Quick point of order- this is not correct. And has been corrected in the FSD forums here a number of times in the past.
Please stop spreading these lies. It is completely false. Waymo has said that HD maps are priors and the cars can drive without them. In fact, there are situations where the HD map is wrong, like a new construction zone, and the Waymo still drives. Waymo has also said that they drive in real-time with the sensors. So Waymo can work without HD maps. Waymo says they use HD maps because it improves safety. And JJ ricks even took a ride a bit outside a geofence once in one of his old videos. The car did not just stop and require a tech to retrieve it. The geofences are just the chosen service areas for the ride-hailing service. They are not a hard limit that stops the autonomous driving from working. Waymo Driver is generalized, it can work anywhere.
(more detail in that post if you click the reference link and you want it)
Whereas if you put an FSDb vehicle most places, it will be able to maneuver the vehicle on its own pretty well, and possibly with no intervention at all while supervised.
Again- the human is doing (or is intended to be doing at least) more than "supervising" FSD- you're also expected to be completing the OEDR task which the L2 system is not capable of doing. So the human is performing 2 of the 4 tasks required for driving (completes the OEDR subtask and supervises) and is also capable of doing the other 2 as needed.
The L2 system is only performing 2 of the 4 tasks (the lateral and longitudinal vehicle motion control subtasks of the DDT) and
not capable of the other two. Hence why the human is the only driver, ever, in this situation.
In addition some might argue that when FSDb V12 is controlling the vehicle it does so in a more natural way than a Waymo vehicle.
Some might- but outside of Omar and some Tesla employees none of them could legitimately and knowledgably do so.
That said- once we have more first hand info among those in the thread, if that turns out to be accurate, then it'd be completely legit to write FSD performs the lateral and longitudinal vehicle motion control subtasks of the DDT more naturally than Waymo does. But not that it drives. Because it still does not.
Much like MANY have cited
other oems L2 systems as, for example, being smoother and more natural than the phantom braking Teslas system often added to the mix. But those, also, never were driving the car.
It might be great if we could just acknowledge the different uses of terms and couch our arguments as such.
This would perhaps require folks to understand the terms, and why they exist and matter- instead of dismissing them all as "semantics" and "that's just Tesla lying about their own stuff"[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
I actually don't think he's correct about that either. People need to read the J3016 PDF document and see that it mentions the word "driving" like 400 times, as it relates to automation.
Just because something is partial driving automation doesn't mean it's never going to "drive."
It
literally does my dude.
Right there in the J3016 you apparently didn't read beyond doing a word count on "driving"
On page 28 where it lists each level, and has a column for the role of the user (the human), the
very first thing it says there is:
Driver (at all times)
The L2 system is
never, ever, ever the driver because it
can not drive because it
can not do all the subtasks of the DDT.
Only someone or something capable of doing
all the subtasks is
ever the driver.
