Because, anyone who develops software knows, your software developers are usually the first to test / debug these things. You don't send it off to random engineering teams, until you at least have some idea that it works.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Because, anyone who develops software knows, your software developers are usually the first to test / debug these things. You don't send it off to random engineering teams, until you at least have some idea that it works.
Yep, have logged a few thousand miles of test data myself(nothing as cool as AP). Which is why I'm now feeling sort of dumb. They don't need to actually do the run in AP mode for development. Instead, they load up a group of cars with hard drives and record the live sensor data for multiple runs/ times of day/ positions.
Take that back to lab, add an image mapping algorithm to allow the NN to deviate from the original path, add another to superimpose obsticles and train, train, train.
With NN, chances are the person in the car can't do a whole lot except mark when bad behavior happened for the peeps at home base to analyse. It's a whole lot of coefficients.
Did the same thing with our sensor. Log the raw data, then see how different processing techniques work. Pretty cool to run through hours of driving in a few minutes.
Theoretically they could do anything. Based on the maps data I observed, they started in California.
zmarty
Member
I am very disappointed in Tesla regarding the California DMV disengagements report where they clocked in 0 (zero) self-driving miles. Allow me to quote myself from the investors' thread:
- Pretty much the entire AP team is in California. I find it simply unbelievable that you can develop self-driving software without testing it seriously on public roads, like your competition does. If they did test something that is not classified as self-driving by California it's pretty much as bad in my eyes. I do not believe for a second they periodically shipped software to a totally separate team for testing out of State, let's be serious.
- As always with Tesla, I find their choice of words very deliberate. The statement prepared by their counsel was obviously meant to reassure the public about the state of their self-driving program. I can guarantee they have foreseen how badly this would look, that is why they wrote the statement this way. Legally they did not have to explain themselves this much to the California DMV.
That is your interpretation of that document. Not saying you are right or wrong. Others can simply conclude that data gathering and testing outside of CA, is a better way to make progress than testing in CA and giving some disconnect numbers, that may not truly reflect their progress.
Because the "short" press out there is dying to dissect every numbers and details that come out of Tesla in the most negative way. This is one way to keep the haters away and still keep making progress.
Remember the "sparks flying in M3 welding" interpretation?
Chances are - the team is superbusy working on the promised EAP features, and since EAP is a mere driver assist, it does not need any reporting. The FSD demo works barely started at the very end of December and reporting for December is next year.
pdxgibby
Software Engineer
I can guarantee you the EAP and FSD is very much alive and kicking at Tesla.
400,000 Model 3s + 150,000 Model S / X (2.0+ hardware) = 550,000 cars with the possibility of FSD upgrade at $6k per car (assuming not purchased at delivery) = $3.3 Billion
400,000 Model 3s + 150,000 Model S / X (2.0+ hardware) = 550,000 cars with the possibility of FSD upgrade at $6k per car (assuming not purchased at delivery) = $3.3 Billion
Last I checked there were only 5k or so model 3s.
Also I am sure the other side looks at this with "imagine the liability Tesla has on its hands - so many cars they made unsustainable promises about (and there's first class action already!)" mindset.
pdxgibby
Software Engineer
And allow me to quote my rebuttal:
As long as the test drivers keep their hands on the wheel (like any other AP user) it is not considered automonomous mode and does not get reported. The software can automatically log disagreements between the driver and AP for training purposes. This is the safest way to run real world tests due to having the least reaction time between bad AP driving and ability of driver to take over.
Further, if the SW requires monitoring by a natural person, it is not considered an autonomous vehicle. I would put forth that a button one must press at regular intervals (or continuously hold aka "dead man's switch") would fall into this category as does the hands on wheel nag.
Therefore, I do indeed claim that Tesla can run FSD with a nag added and not be required to report anything.
Link to CA legislation
Uber tried that defense and it was not pretty in the end. Uber’s self-driving cars ran through 6 stoplights in California, NY Times says
It's not a defense, it is the letter of the law. If it requires physical control or monitoring it is not an autonomous vehicle.
In the article you posted, the core issue was that the vehicle ran 6 red lights. This shows that it was NOT under control or (effective) monitoring of a natural person. Therefore, it was an operating as an autonomous vehicle and Uber required a testing permit.
Further, Uber had publicised it's self driving fleet previously. And their defense was not at all in line with the statute, from link in article:
Took control, not maintained control.
AP is not reported usage and CA has been fine with that. Therefore, it does not count as autonomous mode (along with not meeting tge legal definition). Why then would FSD running
with the same nag system instead of EAP be reportable?
You must not be in IT. As a software engineer the worst thing is dealing with another engineer thousands of miles away who made updates to a code. Alittle cliff note: it rarely works out.
Worse is the idea that the actual engineers aren't testing the cars which i tell you they are.
That's why all the SDC company have setup operations in each city that they are testing in with actual engineers there to work on the part of the software policy specifically for that city.
This is completely wrong. First of all, all SDC company test drivers keep their hand on the wheel except when doing a press event and the inverse is actually true for driver assistance such as the hand free supercruise.
People don't engage driver assistance software and put their hands on the wheel.
Also SDC Test drivers actually MONITOR the system. That's the entire point of testing.
Your post makes no sense because safety drivers put their hands on the wheel and foot on the brake and there are two engineers monitoring the system at every moment.
All SDC today are physically controlled and monitored by their safety drivers.
That was the article, that has nothing to do with CA DMV decision. they already requested Uber get a license.
again this is nonsense as autonomous test cars ARE monitored.
lol what?
Please click some links in that article, CA DMV found them in violation long before the red light accident.
Uber insisted that according to the letter of the law they are just an ADAS and not self driving so they don't need to report. Same argument you seem to be making on behalf of Tesla (speculatively).
Look. Tesla did the 2016 "demonstration" videos in California. They have their HQs in California. They have their Design Studio, factory and engineers in California. According to @verygreen, they're making hd-maps in California. Elon Musk drives around in California. Tesla has applied for and been granted an autonomous test permit in California.
What kind of shred of evidence do we have that Tesla has actually been doing field testing elsewhere than California?
Secret labs. Indoor test facilities. GTA5. Area 51.
LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What kind of shred of evidence do we have that Tesla has actually been doing field testing elsewhere than California?
Secret labs. Indoor test facilities. GTA5. Area 51.
LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TrafficEng
Member
Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is:
1) Tesla is working from EAP -> FSD. Their test drivers sit behind the wheel, with hands on 'testing EAP'.
2) The others are all starting at FSD
3) Tesla lawyers interpret the requirement from CA as only applicable to FSD
4) Tesla layers say 'no reporting required' based on a very narrow interpretation of CA regulations.
Leaves us, and their competition, guessing. Nothing technical to be gleaned from this report, but by all means have a discussion whether Tesla lawyers are right to skip the reporting requirements on a technicality.
1) Tesla is working from EAP -> FSD. Their test drivers sit behind the wheel, with hands on 'testing EAP'.
2) The others are all starting at FSD
3) Tesla lawyers interpret the requirement from CA as only applicable to FSD
4) Tesla layers say 'no reporting required' based on a very narrow interpretation of CA regulations.
Leaves us, and their competition, guessing. Nothing technical to be gleaned from this report, but by all means have a discussion whether Tesla lawyers are right to skip the reporting requirements on a technicality.
IT or SW development? I write SW, it gets tested by other people. I write SW that had a high level of user interaction for a Tier 1.
I would not expect a non development engineer driving the test car to make any SW changes. I would expect telemetry back to HQ, along with raw data logs later for further investigation. I'd also expect HQ to be able to log into the car for any changes needed.
Ok, I only clicked on of the sub links, which I quoted and clearly showed they were not in the letter not spirit of the law. Basically saying: "it's not finished because we need to take control, therefore not autonomous, therefore no reporting/ permit needed"
And blowing 6 red lights is a clear indication of either not monitoring, not in control, or reckless endangerment. I'd say they got off easy.
Again: replace EAP(not reported) with FSD code, keep nag. What has changed that now requires reporting?
Tesla is much further behind than GM/Waymo that I could have ever imagined. To think just a few years ago they were the clear cut leaders in the industry.
I mean christ, some company named "Zoox" logged more AV mile testing in CA than Tesla. Lol
I mean christ, some company named "Zoox" logged more AV mile testing in CA than Tesla. Lol
Similar threads
