-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
FSD v12.x (end to end AI)
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
-
- Tags
- #fixphantombraking autopilot chill is not chill elon is an ass fix fsd extreme late deceleration fsd does not commit to go fsd does not maintain proper speed fsd hard and late braking fsd has decision wobble fsd jerky driving fsd late deceleration fsd sometimes may not detect train crossings fsd stops too early too quickly fsd stops too far behind line fsd tailgating in city streets
It still doesn't work reliably. FSD makes attempts which are clearly inappropriate and then relies on the human driver to recover from death, destruction, and liability.
No doubt Tesla made poor design/performance choices in lieu of max profits and ease of production. And for the most part they got away with it possibly related to being new unknown technology and naive/fan-based customers.
No. There's no one who would accept that a car is level 4 if it needed to come to a stop when there was a ULT. That would be a failed product.
There are situations and places where just making rights simply won't work as a viable solution.
Edit: "Your robotaxi has stopped due to a left turn on your route."
jeewee3000
Active Member
Another one taking my post out of context.
The question was: was v12 FSD (E2E build) running in the livestream? I said: yes.
I did not say Tesla is beating Waymo. You are putting Ashok's words in my mouth.
I did not comment on Tesla's forward looking statements regarding autonomy, which have been indeed inaccurate.
By the way you set up your argument, you show your bias. Therefore you have very little credibility left in my eyes. I'm looking at you @spacecoin, @legendsk , @aataskin
This is why I avoid this thread so much, because it's either fanboys or haters. Very little true (technical) discussion regarding the possibilities/strengths/weaknesses of current FSD architecture.
It seems likely but the original question was if there was any proof. Do you have any?
About putting words in people’s months: I didn’t say you said it. I said Ashok (“they”) said it. Ashok’s statement is obviously completely false and an Elon-level marketing statement.
People still seem to believe a NN is as capable as a brain so any discussions like “the sensing is good enough because I could drive using it” are stupid. That’s the level of half the comments in any thread.
FSD architecture discussions are meaningless at this point. E2E is the latest buzzword. The only single thing that matters is performance (reliability). And it sucks even in optimal conditions. FSD just isn’t reliable for city driving, and I think it’s a fool‘s errand.
Tesla has been saying the next version will blow your mind for too long now. It’s more likely than not this is still the case with v12. They will solve some problems and create a few new ones.
Last edited:
You are confusing what is an acceptable product, to the definition of automation levels. Mercedes level 3 offering comes to mind. It fits the definition of level 3, but its ability to operate at that level is so limited that it is a pointless feature.
Mercedes fits in the definition level of level 3 or (traffic jam assist). There's not a committee that decides if something is actually level "X"...we use them to shape discussion. A car that couldn't make those ULT would not be considered level 4 by most...but we have people in this forum who think Tesla is level 3 right now and others have even argued Tesla can already do level 4...so take that as you will.
Making those turns routinely and safely is a necessity to actual full self-driving/robotaxi. There will be instances where they can avoid it with a right turn, but not all, then later make a U-turn, but not always.
At present,the L3 mode of DrivePilot is v limited. The L2 mode of the same system is not.
Mercedes is claiming they aim for 130 km/h L3 which I would pay 10k for btw.
When do you think Tesla does L3 w/ liability in some ODD, like Autopark or smart summon or like the current Drive Pilot? 2028? They don’t seem to care about reliability at all rn. Reliability isn’t sexy, but it is required for autonomy.
Last edited:
The Society of Automotive Engineers has a committee that decides on the definition of automotive driving levels. We can decide on our own if a particular system meets the definition of one level or another.
SAE Levels of Driving Automation™ Refined for Clarity and International Audience
Advancing the conversation around mobility knowledge with news and trends to benefit humanity.
www.sae.org
Level 4 does not require anything beyond bringing the car to a safe place to stop.
GSP
This is a good example of a sytem that meets L3 definition, but it needs to be capable enough to be useful before most people will pay for it.
Tesla doesn’t have anything that meets the L3 definition, of course.
They decide the definition, but not what meets or does not meet. People stretch and interpret those in their own way...just like you are doing now. No one of merit would interpret level 4 to mean they only have to be able to stop if they can't do something. That's not the intention nor a logical interpretation...you are either just trying to troll or you don't comprehend what you are reading.The Society of Automotive Engineers has a committee that decides on the definition of automotive driving levels. We can decide on our own if a particular system meets the definition of one level or another.
SAE Levels of Driving Automation™ Refined for Clarity and International Audience
Advancing the conversation around mobility knowledge with news and trends to benefit humanity.www.sae.org
Level 4 does not require anything beyond bringing the car to a safe place to stop.
GSP
If it's as simplistic as you are trying to say (it's absolutely not) One would argue that Level 4 means the car can only go straight and will pull over to stop if any turns arise, then it's level 4.
It ignores that level 4 also mandates that a driver will not have to take over and that the car is not required to have a steering wheel or pedal. So the only option would be for the conditions to improve or a safety driver to take over. That's not possible without some ridiculous made up scenario where Tesla could remotely take every turn for 400k+ vehicles,
So, yes...this is a requirement for Level 4. If a car can't make a left turn, but will pull over...that will not satisfy any rational definition.
I agree. A “safe” place to stop needs to be a legal place. Pulling over on the shoulder should only be acceptable for a mechanical failure.
Maybe an exception would be weather that requires the human drivers to stop, as not even a level 5 system could handle that. I have been in rainstorms so violent that I could not see the road in front of me, even with the wipers on high. I slowed to 15-20 mph with flashers on, but it got so bad that I had to pull over for 5-10 minutes before the rain subsided enough to see.
GSP
The manufacturer sets the ODD of their solution. They could include a no ULT condition in their ODD, just like it could include a no rain, snow, fog, etc. condition. (Just like Waymo avoids ULTs, highway, etc. and used to pull over and stop if it started raining and is still a L4 system.)
Obviously, their routing should take that into account so they don't get stuck, but technically that would qualify as L4 by the standards set by the SAE.
Avoiding them is one thing and that's where I was saying it would be criticized if it always made rights to the point where people would question if it was actually a viable FSD product (like they do with Waymo and interstates), but GSP saying the car can just stop on those situations is not correct. There are conditions where a car cannot drive and come to a complete stop until the conditions improve, but if the car comes to a stop with ever ULT and needs a tow truck or a remote driver to resolve it, that would not be a real level 4 scenario (unless, as I said...you make up a scenario where Tesla could do remote interventions on all vehicles).
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Which FSD employee is going to tell Elon to stop wasting time on CULT - a big PR item ... and stay employed ?
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Not ULT - we are specifically talking about CULT.
3 lanes each way - speeds above 50 mph. There is not a single urban situation I know of in Seattle metro that would allow a ULT in such a situation.
One positive about tackling CULT in 10.x/11.x is that now FSD can do easier ULTs properly. May be 12 will as well, who knows. But CULT can definitely be avoided. Someone was saying UPS routes their trucks to avoid ULTs and I bet they will never do that CULT. If UPS can do that, so can robotaxis.
jabloomf1230
Minister of Silly Walks
No, Tesla made a choice on the sensor array in its vehicles and has stubbornly refused to admit that it's inadequate. If the approach is to rely on vision, then there has to be 360 degree horizontal coverage with cameras.
Unfortunately, one of the worst possible vision blindspots is the one exhibited in Chuck's ULT. However, my personal experience with similar ULTs and URTs is that ego does not see enough to reliably make these turns. Your experience is obviously different.
