FSD v12.x (end to end AI)

[OxBrew]

I refuse to believe anyone has basic AP now after all the free trials and such, everyone is surely at least subscribed to FSD.

Do basic AP and FSD have different driver monitoring processes? I haven’t kept up enough to know if the reduction in wheel torque was limited to just FSD.

You're joking, right? After the free trial, not only did I not subscribe, I also turned off AP, and rarely even use TACC. It's all garbage and makes you complacent. You need your muscles actively engaged in steering the car to be able to take over in time.

FSDs tried to swerve into oncoming traffic on a 2 lane road at 45 mph. It's hot garbage.

And I bought a 1971 BMW last week. No more tech for me, not ready for general release.

 

[rlsd]

I found 2023.14.9/FSD 12.3.6 automatically set max speed on 2 other freeways. Yesterday it set max speed to 72 mph on freeway 805 and 163 in San Diego (speed limits 55 and 65 mph).

 

[JulienW]

To clarify, from memory SAE does not specifically require driver monitoring for anything (even L2 doesn't, for example Infiniti's early system has no driver monitoring at all, you don't even need to be in the seat). Rather it is the other requirements (the take over requirement which is immediate for L2 and "several seconds" for L3) that essentially forces automakers to need them indirectly.

Here could be a problem if Tesla decides to implement a L3 system and NEEDING monitoring. Tesla has no reliable eye monitoring system. The current ad hock system used is poor, inefficient and unreliable as a safety monitoring system. Using it would be like a ODD limitation since you can't use sunglasses, lighting must be good, can't wear a hat, etc.

Guess we could fall back on torquing the wheel but this requires you to be paying attention and that is the opposite of what L3 is supposed to offer.

EDIT: Just to add even the Mercedes (Ford, GM, etc) systems that uses detected IR eye tracking systems can't reliably tell if you are looking down and reading a book/iPad/playing game or closed eyes sleeping. So eye tracking can't really be used by any system anyway.

 

[LSDTester#1]

Here could be a problem if Tesla decides to implement a L3 system and NEEDING monitoring. Tesla has no reliable eye monitoring system. The current ad hock system used is poor, inefficient and unreliable as a safety monitoring system. Using it would be like a ODD limitation since you can't use sunglasses, lighting must be good, can't wear a hat, etc.

Guess we could fall back on torquing the wheel but this requires you to be paying attention and that is the opposite of what L3 is supposed to offer.

EDIT: Just to add even the Mercedes (Ford, GM, etc) systems that uses detected IR eye tracking systems can't reliably tell if you are looking down and reading a book/iPad/playing game or closed eyes sleeping. So eye tracking can't really be used by any system anyway.

I can see it now. @FSDtester#1 is going through the gate and over the beaver….

 

[Twiglett]

can't imagine have any EV really parked in my garage and not taking it for a spin but each to their own I guess.

I dunno, my wife resisted driving my Model 3 for three years because she thought she would like it too much
Since then she drove it , loved it, now we're a two Tesla family.

 

[AndrewZ]

You're joking, right? After the free trial, not only did I not subscribe, I also turned off AP, and rarely even use TACC. It's all garbage and makes you complacent. You need your muscles actively engaged in steering the car to be able to take over in time.

FSDs tried to swerve into oncoming traffic on a 2 lane road at 45 mph. It's hot garbage.

And I bought a 1971 BMW last week. No more tech for me, not ready for general release.

Tesla should bundle FSD with a Neuralink setup that keeps your adrenal glands running at full tilt in the event FSD misbehaves

 

[rlsd]

I found 2023.14.9/FSD 12.3.6 automatically set max speed on 2 other freeways. Yesterday it set max speed to 72 mph on freeway 805 and 163 in San Diego (speed limits 55 and 65 mph).

Laugh anyway you want but I only posted what I saw. I don't distort the truth.

 

[sleepydoc]

To clarify, from memory SAE does not specifically require driver monitoring for anything (even L2 doesn't, for example Infiniti's early system has no driver monitoring at all, you don't even need to be in the seat). Rather it is the other requirements (the take over requirement which is immediate for L2 and "several seconds" for L3) that essentially forces automakers to need them indirectly.

It doesn’t even force the need indirectly. What forces it is human stupidity. Since L3 only requires you to take over in a reasonable amount of time you don’t need to be paying attention at all and thus monitoring software should be unnecessary.

Here could be a problem if Tesla decides to implement a L3 system and NEEDING monitoring. Tesla has no reliable eye monitoring system. The current ad hock system used is poor, inefficient and unreliable as a safety monitoring system. Using it would be like a ODD limitation since you can't use sunglasses, lighting must be good, can't wear a hat, etc.

Guess we could fall back on torquing the wheel but this requires you to be paying attention and that is the opposite of what L3 is supposed to offer.

EDIT: Just to add even the Mercedes (Ford, GM, etc) systems that uses detected IR eye tracking systems can't reliably tell if you are looking down and reading a book/iPad/playing game or closed eyes sleeping. So eye tracking can't really be used by any system anyway.

Again, by definition you are not driving the car in a level 3 system and so no monitoring is needed. Not sure why you're worried about monitoring in L3. As I said in another post I'm not sure why the criteria needs to be an absolutely bulletproof system. Take the video you posted for example. They were intentionally finding means to circumvent the system. Anyone doing this with the intent of abusing the feature is knowingly being reckless. Why is it Tesla's (or Mercedes' or anyone else's) fault?

 

[JulienW]

......Again, by definition you are not driving the car in a level 3 system and so no monitoring is needed. Not sure why you're worried about monitoring in L3. As I said in another post I'm not sure why the criteria needs to be an absolutely bulletproof system. Take the video you posted for example. They were intentionally finding means to circumvent the system. Anyone doing this with the intent of abusing the feature is knowingly being reckless. Why is it Tesla's (or Mercedes' or anyone else's) fault?

Not sure why you quoted me since I posted L3 doesn't require monitoring. I was simply responding to others that implied L3 required monitoring. I was posting that EVEN IF Tesla (or any other car manufacturer) required L3 eye tracking monitoring it would not work.

However if problems arise and NHTSA receives complaints they could implement some type of L3 monitoring requirement.

EDIT: Oddly you even Liked my post from yesterday.

 

[Dewg]

Laugh anyway you want but I only posted what I saw. I don't distort the truth.

He's laughing because we already know all this. Chill = 5% Average = 10% Assertive = 15% So, you're in Average mode, the car detected 65 limit, and set you to 72.

 

[uscbucsfan]

Not sure why you quoted me since I posted L3 doesn't require monitoring. I was simply responding to others that implied L3 required monitoring. I was posting that EVEN IF Tesla (or any other car manufacturer) required L3 eye tracking monitoring it would not work.

However if problems arise and NHTSA receives complaints they could implement some type of L3 monitoring requirement.

EDIT: Oddly you even Liked my post from yesterday.

View attachment 1059573

The point of my post is that with L3, you will still have L2 since L3 is limited. Monitoring is still needed with L3 in general, even if the solution itself doesn't NEED it. Mercedes does monitor with L3, though.

None require monitoring, but as we know, L2 systems "need" it to ensure the driver follows the rules.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It doesn’t even force the need indirectly. What forces it is human stupidity. Since L3 only requires you to take over in a reasonable amount of time you don’t need to be paying attention at all and thus monitoring software should be unnecessary.

It's needed because otherwise people would go to sleep. Although you don't need to be paying direct attention, you need to be ready to take over within 10 seconds or less ("several seconds" under SAE). That's why plenty of people say L3 is the most dangerous level, because it's in the middle level where you are allowed to take attention away, yet you are still expected to respond in seconds.

I've seen countless people claim you can sleep when using L3 (even "journalists") and you very much can't!

Again, by definition you are not driving the car in a level 3 system and so no monitoring is needed. Not sure why you're worried about monitoring in L3. As I said in another post I'm not sure why the criteria needs to be an absolutely bulletproof system. Take the video you posted for example. They were intentionally finding means to circumvent the system. Anyone doing this with the intent of abusing the feature is knowingly being reckless. Why is it Tesla's (or Mercedes' or anyone else's) fault?

Good luck making that argument to the NHTSA. If the misuse is foreseeable, you have to prevent it. Theoretically driver monitoring isn't required for L2 either if people don't misuse it. Too bad you can't depend on people to do that.

 

[AndrewZ]

Driver monitoring with L3 to ensure the driver is ready to take over when prompted within the time allotted speaks to challenges inherent in the technology and concept IMO, not specific to Mercedes or any other suite but in general. That being the case with Mercedes in a Traffic Jam Assist could be used as a proxy for how far away Level 3 at full highway speeds may be, where reaction time allowances will be far shorter and things can go from fine to really bad in a split second. A Level 3 system would need to not only provide sufficient time after warning that things are about to get really bad but also ensure the driver is immediately ready to take over when barreling towards that bad thing at 36 metres per second — there is not much wiggle room, huge risk and liability for whoever attempts to sell a system like this.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Here could be a problem if Tesla decides to implement a L3 system and NEEDING monitoring. Tesla has no reliable eye monitoring system. The current ad hock system used is poor, inefficient and unreliable as a safety monitoring system. Using it would be like a ODD limitation since you can't use sunglasses, lighting must be good, can't wear a hat, etc.

Guess we could fall back on torquing the wheel but this requires you to be paying attention and that is the opposite of what L3 is supposed to offer.

EDIT: Just to add even the Mercedes (Ford, GM, etc) systems that uses detected IR eye tracking systems can't reliably tell if you are looking down and reading a book/iPad/playing game or closed eyes sleeping. So eye tracking can't really be used by any system anyway.

NHTSA would deem a reasonable practical solution as sufficient, they don't require a 100% reliable solution (just like how steering monitoring has plenty of flaws, but yet is allowed to deal with L2 monitoring). Having an ODD limitation isn't a problem, just look at how restrictive Mercedes' L3 solution is!

For the manufacturer, the cynic in me says, the main thing they need is a way to tell if the driver was asleep, which allows them to deny liability in the case the driver fails to respond within 10 seconds and the gradual stop maneuver fails to prevent an accident.

 

[Dewg]

Driver monitoring with L3 to ensure the driver is ready to take over when prompted within the time allotted speaks to challenges inherent in the technology and concept IMO, not specific to Mercedes or any other suite but in general. That being the case with Mercedes in a Traffic Jam Assist could be used as a proxy for how far away Level 3 at full highway speeds may be, where reaction time allowances will be far shorter and things can go from fine to really bad in a split second. A Level 3 system would need to not only provide sufficient time after warning that things are about to get really bad but also ensure the driver is immediately ready to take over when barreling towards that bad thing at 36 metres per second — there is not much wiggle room, huge risk and liability for whoever attempts to sell a system like this.

If full highway speed becomes real for Mercedes at L3, I assure you that it will be at the speed limit (driver will NOT be able to modify the system), it will be at a very comfortable gap to the lead car, and will not allow for lane changes. Even if the lead car slammed on the brakes, the Merecedes will be able to come to a full stop gracefully and with room to spare.

 

[JulienW]

.....Mercedes does monitor with L3, though.....

Not doubting but I can't find or am over looking this info. Could you please post a link to where Mercedes says that monitor the driver in L3.

EDIT: Also I found this on the Mercedes site about the German law on L3 and it states that you can look away. So eye taking would be irrelevant.

The legal situation in Germany​

Since the German Road Traffic Regulations were amended in June 2017, it has been permissible in Germany to operate a vehicle with a conditionally automated driving function (SAE level 3). If the function is activated, the person at the wheel may turn away from the traffic situation and the vehicle controls, but must be able to take control of the wheel again at any time. The prerequisite for this is that this function is used in the operating range, the so called Operational Design Domain, specified by the manufacturer....

 

[Dewg]

Not doubting but I can't find or am over looking this info. Could you please post a link to where Mercedes says that monitor the driver in L3.

I already quoted from Mercedes:

FSD v12.x (end to end AI)

What a strange post. You know that, currently, sunglasses allow you to look at the screen or your phone as it just measures your head angle with them on. If you don't know that, there's videos showing it and it's really easy to test. That's the reason why with sunglasses the camera monitoring...

teslamotorsclub.com

 

[JulienW]

I already quoted from Mercedes:

I know but WHERE did you see this? Because I can't find it. Please provide a link.

 

[uscbucsfan]

I know but WHERE did you see this? Because I can't find it. Please provide a link.

It's everywhere....

Mercedes-Benz’s Drive Pilot: Is liability still a roadblock?

Mercedes-Benz sells the first level 3 autonomous cars in the U.S, assuming liability for any incidents while its Drive Pilot is active.

www.prescouter.com

Currently, Mercedes allows drivers to watch movies and play games, but the camera monitors mobile phone use and someone falling asleep.

 

[MP3Mike]

I know but WHERE did you see this? Because I can't find it. Please provide a link.

I just did a web search and it took me right to the source.

In the FAQ: DRIVE PILOT Automated Driving

Can I fall asleep while using DRIVE PILOT?​

The user must be awake and ready to resume driving at all times when operating the vehicle. The vehicle is equipped with a driver monitoring camera in the driver’s display to ensure the customer is ready to respond to a takeover request.