FSD v12.x (end to end AI)

[powertoold]

There are still major misunderstandings about the SAE levels here.

The levels describe what we can EXPECT from a driving system and doesn't convey anything about its performance.

Just because something is L2 doesn't mean it can't perform the DDT as well as L4 or L5. It just means that with L2, there's an expectation that the driver might need to intervene because it may not perform the entire DDT.

 

[spacecoin]

There are still major misunderstandings about the SAE levels here.

The levels describe what we can EXPECT from a driving system and doesn't convey anything about its performance.

Just because something is L2 doesn't mean it can't perform the DDT as well as L4 or L5. It just means that with L2, there's an expectation that the driver might need to intervene because it may not perform the entire DDT.

You can't both have a L2 and and L4 design intent. And you can't realistically "evolve" ADAS to ADS either. You will need a redesign of most parts of the system.

Shipping an L2 and implying it's L4 under testing is just *puke emoji* When it leaves the dev team and gets to customers it's shipped. With an L2 design intent.

You're reading J3016 like the devil reads the bible (Swedish proverb).

 

[powertoold]

You can't both have a L2 and and L4 design intent. And you can't realistically "evolve" ADAS to ADS either. You will need a redesign of most parts of the system.

Shipping an L2 and implying it's L4 under testing is just *puke emoji* When it leaves the dev team and gets to customers it's shipped. With an L2 design intent.

You're reading J3016 like the devil reads the bible (Swedish proverb).

Nothing you said contradicts what I posted.

Someone can never say a L2 is a L4. However, if the L2 developer removes all expectations of a driver from the software (no driver monitoring, nags, seat sensor, etc.), then it can become L4 if it meets the other L4 requirements.

 

[spacecoin]

The taxonomy isn't very interesting. Actual deployment is the only thing that matters. Tesla clearly has a L2 design intent for FSDb as they ship it as L2 to customers and has said so to the DMV and NHTSA and says so in the owner's manual. The beta label means nothing in the taxonomy nor legally. It's marketing term to lower expectations. Marketing an L2 as an L4 doesn't make it an L4 either.

A car can only have one driver and the system isn't legally driving until it is (permit or self-certification + liability insurance). A system in the development/validation phase that requires a human fallback isn't ready, and hence isn't driving imho.

 

[Knightshade]

There are still major misunderstandings about the SAE levels here.

Yes, largely by yourself.

The levels describe what we can EXPECT from a driving system and doesn't convey anything about its performance.

But it does convey requirements about intent and capability.

Just because something is L2 doesn't mean it can't perform the DDT as well as L4 or L5.

Yes, it literally does mean that.

L2 by definition can not perform the entire DDT.

Once it can perform the entire DDT then it is by definition higher than L2.


L2: The sustained and ODD-specific execution by a driving automation system of both the lateral and longitudinal vehicle motion
control subtasks of the DDT with the expectation that the driver completes the OEDR subtask and supervises the driving
automation system

L3: The sustained and ODD-specific performance by an ADS of the entire DDT under routine/normal operation (see 3.27) with
the expectation that the DDT fallback-ready user is receptive to ADS-issued requests to intervene, as well as to DDT
performance-relevant system failures in other vehicle systems, and will respond appropriately.

L4: The sustained and ODD-specific performance by an ADS of the entire DDT and DDT fallback’.

L5: The sustained and unconditional (i.e., not ODD-specific) performance by an ADS of the entire DDT and DDT fallback


If your system can perform the entire DDT it's higher than L2. By definition.

Teslas can not.

 

[diplomat33]

However, if the L2 developer removes all expectations of a driver from the software (no driver monitoring, nags, seat sensor, etc.), then it can become L4 if it meets the other L4 requirements.

Nope.

If the system is L2, it means it cannot perform entire DDT. Removing driver supervision, does not make it L4. It is still L2 since it cannot perform entire DDT. Removing driver supervision for L2, just means that you still have L2, just L2 with no driver supervision (not a good idea).

You seem to be under the illusion that a system can functionally be L4 (it can do entire DDT) but the developer just designates it as "L2" because it might need driver supervision. This is a common misconception by some Tesla fans who think that FSD beta is basically L4, it is just designated "L2" because it needs driver supervision. And once it is reliable enough to not need driver supervision, then Tesla can simply declare it is now L4.

That is not how it works. If the system can perform entire DDT and DDT-fallback in limited ODD, then it is L4, whether there is driver supervision or not. And if the system cannot perform entire DDT, then it is L2, whether there is driver supervision or not (of course, no driver supervision for L2 does not really make sense).

I think Tesla fans need to pick a lane. If FSD beta is performing entire DDT and DDT-fallback, then it is L4. It would be L4 with driver supervision but it is L4. If FSD beta is not performing entire DDT then it is L2. You can't say it is both L2 and L4.

 

[MP3Mike]

Handily, powertoolds picture below ALSO answers THAT question. They are performing part of the DDT. You aren't "driving" unless you perform all of it.

"driving" is not a single thing. It's a combination of a number of tasks.

The only time something can be considering "driving" is when it's capable of doing ALL those tasks.

I get by your logic there is no driver, or driving occurring, as nobody/nothing is performing the entire DDT. But yet the vehicle goes around the block stopping, starting, and steering as necessary.

Again, you are refusing to answer the actual question. What is FSDb doing? You say that it is "performing part of the DDT" does that mean it is partially driving?

SAE Levels, laws, and lawyers are not invoked/involved. What I am looking for is what common people would say FSDb is doing in this situation.

Taking your view to the extreme, a person could never be charged with "driving under the influence" as they are not capable of performing the entire DDT while drunk. So they were not driving.

 

[powertoold]

If the system is L2, it means it cannot perform entire DDT.

Not true, in L2, the system is designed as such where a driver is EXPECTED to perform the rest of the DDT that is not performed by the L2 driving system. This doesn't mean the L2 cannot perform the entire DDT on every TRIP. Please reread the document to understand this nuance.

It is possible for a L2 to perform the entire DDT for a particular trip, but the driver is still expected to be present to supervise and take over if the driving system's isn't able to complete a particular DDT.

Once again, the levels don't tell you anything about system performance. It says so in the document.

 

[diplomat33]

Not true, in L2, the system is designed as such where a driver is EXPECTED to perform the rest of the DDT that is not performed by the L2 driving system. This doesn't mean the L2 cannot perform the entire DDT on every trip. Please reread the document to understand this nuance.

I know J3016 very well. I think your are splitting hairs. If the L2 could do the entire DDT, it would not need a driver to perform the rest of the DDT. So yes, an expectation that the driver perform the rest of the DDT implies that the L2 cannot perform the entire DDT.

Page 28:

Driver (at all times):
• Performs the remainder of the DDT not performed by the driving automation system.

Driving automation system (while engaged):
• Performs part of the DDT by executing both the lateral and the longitudinal vehicle motion control subtasks.

It clearly says that the L2 performs part of the DDT and the human driver performs the other part of the DDT that the L2 does not do.

 

[willow_hiller]

The taxonomy isn't very interesting. Actual deployment is the only thing that matters. Tesla clearly has a L2 design intent for FSDb as they ship it as L2 to customers and has said so to the DMV and NHTSA and says so in the owner's manual.

I hope you realize that the email to the California DMV you're referring to was from December 2020. Yes, in it they said that Autosteer on City Streets did not have a complete OEDR and that it had an L2 design intent.

But that same email also spoke about Tesla's future plans, namely that they will develop Level 3+ autonomy:

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.

And at the time that the email was written, Tesla did not even have a timeline for shipping Autosteer on City Streets to customers:

Again, a full deployment of City Streets to the customer fleet is not expected in the immediate future.

Note that the "full deployment of City Streets" that that email was not expecting in the immediate future has already happened. In December 2022. So we're already over a year past the "immediate future" of that email.

FSD Beta V11 and below is firmly L2. That in no way precludes FSD Beta V12 and above from being developed as L3+, should Tesla choose to define an ODD, have a complete OEDR, and add a handover routine.

 

[powertoold]

L2 could do the entire DDT, it would not need a driver to perform the rest of the DDT.

The levels are about the system design, not about what you think something ought to be or not. A L2 is a L2 even if you think it's good enough to be L4.

The document goes into examples like this, like a system is still L4 even though the developer is using safety drivers. That's because the design of the system itself doesn't expect a fallback driver.

In the same way, a system may be L4 even though you think it's unsafe or poor at driving.

 

[diplomat33]

A L2 is a L2 even if you think it's good enough to be L4.

That makes no sense. The L2 can only do part of the DDT, how could it be good enough to be L4 which can do the entire DDT?!?

 

[powertoold]

It clearly says that the L2 performs part of the DDT and the human driver performs the other part of the DDT that the L2 does not do.

That's exactly my point, if the L2 driving system IS able to perform all of the DDT, the driver is STILL always expected to take over IN CASE it doesn't. This does NOT mean the driver is always performing the other parts of the DDT.

 

[Knightshade]

I get by your logic there is no driver, or driving occurring, as nobody/nothing is performing the entire DDT. But yet the vehicle goes around the block stopping, starting, and steering as necessary.

But failing to do several OTHER things that are required to actually, either under the law or the SAE guidelines, that are required for driving.

Again, you are refusing to answer the actual question. What is FSDb doing? You say that it is "performing part of the DDT" does that mean it is partially driving?

Not only did I answer, you partly cite my answer while telling me I didn't answer....???

It's performing PART of the driving task. But not the entire thing.

Just like a brick on the accelerator could perform PART of the driving task. But nobody would say the brick is driving either.

AFAIK the only places with any laws on this stuff regarding who is "driving" such a system is "whoever activated the system"

Because, of course, such a system can not, itself, be a driver, since it can not do the complete DDT.

That's exactly my point, if the L2 driving system IS able to perform all of the DDT, the driver is STILL always expected to take over IN CASE it doesn't.

Again this is fundamentally wrong per SAE.

if the system IS able to perform ALL of the DDT then it is by definition higher than L2

The ability to perform the entire DDT is {B]the primary difference[/B] between L2 and the higher levels.

How MUCH higher than L2 all systems that can perform the entire DDT is determined by additional factors:


L3: Can perform the entire DDT within an ODD, but can not perform fallback.
L4: Can perform the entire DDT within an ODD, and CAN perform fallback.
L5: Can perform the entire DDT without an ODD.


Notice the one thing they all have in common? Can perform the entire DDT.

Because definitionally that's not an L2 system if true.

 

[powertoold]

Again this is fundamentally wrong per SAE.

if the system IS able to perform ALL of the DDT then it is by definition higher than L2

The ability to perform the entire DDT is {B]the primary difference[/B] between L2 and the higher levels.

O M G, it's like you didn't read the document at all. A system is not about what YOU think it should be. A system's level is about the design intent itself. If it is designed to expect constant supervision by a driver, then it's L2, despite any commentary or description or speculation about its performance.

You can have a L4 system that crashes into all road debris and construction zones. You can also have a L2 system that drives around road debris and construction zones.

 

[Dewg]

A system's level is about the design intent itself.

I've been eating popcorn, reading this hilarious debate for several days now.

To your point above - you just answered your own question about Tesla, as Knight and others have repeatedly stated - Tesla is L2. They stated their design intent legally to California's governing body. Case closed.

 

[Daniel in SD]

I've been eating popcorn, reading this hilarious debate for several days now.

To your point above - you just answered your own question about Tesla, as Knight and others have repeatedly stated - Tesla is L2. They stated their design intent legally to California's governing body. Case closed.

So did Uber. Stating design intent isn’t sufficient.
FSD is L5. Someday the truth will come out (real internal emails, not ones to government agencies).

 

[zoomer0056]

I've been eating popcorn, reading this hilarious debate for several days now.

To your point above - you just answered your own question about Tesla, as Knight and others have repeatedly stated - Tesla is L2. They stated their design intent legally to California's governing body. Case closed.

Yes, entertaining discussion.

 

[Supcom]

I've been eating popcorn, reading this hilarious debate for several days now.

To your point above - you just answered your own question about Tesla, as Knight and others have repeatedly stated - Tesla is L2. They stated their design intent legally to California's governing body. Case closed.

Looks like we're in for another ten pages of SAE level discussions. How many times, now?

Please Elon, send FSD 12.2 to a youtuber - even if it's Whole Mars. Give us something new to discuss.

 

[JulienW]

Looks like we're in for another ten pages of SAE level discussions. How many times, now?

Please Elon, send FSD 12.2 to a youtuber - even if it's Whole Mars. Give us something new to discuss.

Starting to wonder if there were some problems with 12.2. If so I hope we see 12.2.1 soon.

Or maybe we could see some amendment to the SAE J3016 specs so we could have 10 more "new" pages of debate.