mrbulk
Member
On a lighter note, maybe it could be FSD as long as you can drive from the Back seat...
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
If you can't sleep in it, it is not self-driving
- Thread starter diplomat33
- Start date
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Obviously you can automate parts of flying just like you can automate parts of driving (i.e. autopilot). A "self-flying" plane refers to a plane that doesn't need a pilot.
For example here's an editorial from 2007 heralding the imminent arrival of self-driving cars:
In the Future, Smart People Will Let Cars Take Control (Published 2007)
Smart cars will never be infallible, but they just have to be better than the drivers who now cause more than 90 percent of traffic accidents.
houstonian
ಠ_ಠ
Do your passengers ever complain when you do? Mine tend to freak out. Don’t know what their problem is.
mrbulk
Member
When I die, I want to go out like my grandfather did, smiling while asleep.
Not screaming and kicking like the rest of the passengers in his car...
Not screaming and kicking like the rest of the passengers in his car...
rxlawdude
Active Member
PDX-Y
Member
No, that's the spin. No one is confused about what this product does, most certainly no one in this thread. You want to argue about the product's name as a sideways way of arguing against the product itself without having to argue "about" the product itself.
If you don't think current FSD capabilities are acceptable without a driver, then start a thread about that. Arguing about the name isn't productive for anyone.
The truth is that lots of people really like the current "supervised autonomy" (my term, just to perpetuate it) product and buy it, for a ton of money. And I guess that's upsetting to you?
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
This is a thread about taxonomy, I also like to take argue about the product itself and there are plenty of other threads where I do that.
Elon also appears to agree with me. Today he said "I am highly confident that the cars will be capable of FSD, with the FSD computer and the cameras. I am confident they will be able to drive themselves with a safety level substantially greater than the average person."
The cars are not yet Full Self-Driving.
rxlawdude
Active Member
PDX-Y
Member
No it isn't. Be honest with yourself. There don't even exist any products in the "you can sleep in it" bucket to bother categorizing. Why argue about "taxonomy" in a field with one player (maybe two, if you count the Waymo taxis)?
It's a thread about semantics (what "self" means), which isn't the same thing at all. And IMHO it's not a productive one, since it's clearly just perpetuating existing grievances via different means.
Yes, there does exist such a product: Waymo. Waymo is a full self-driving car that you can safely sleep in while it drives you to your destination.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
The term "self-driving" existed long before Waymo. Obviously we can categorize things that don't exist.
I will concede that this is a losing battle and there's not much hope of returning to the original definition. In fact the SAE agrees that it has become meaningless.
I don't think a car that relies so heavily on remote assistance can really be full self-driving. It's just regular self-driving.
I might take issue with "so heavily". As far as I know, remote assistance is pretty rare. JJ Ricks has done 70 rides with only a couple instances of remote assistance.
Last edited:
Silicon Desert
Well-Known Member
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
I wonder if he was able to perceive all of them. Anyway, that still sounds like a lot to me.
I think since Tesla came up with the term "Full Self-Driving" they should get to define it as long as it also meets the original definition of "self-driving" (which they have done at various times, including today).
Well, Waymo meets the original definition of "self-driving" since remote assistance never takes over the car.
From the definition you shared. Waymo would meet the "no driver is present" and "no user is performing the DDT" definitions of SD. Tesla would only meet the last part "performing any part of the DDT".
Last edited:
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
mrbulk
Member
Much like the variety of proprietary terminology different companies assigned their past products (such as the Sony Memory Stick or their gargantuanly successful BetaMax, remember that?) it makes for a fractured consumer experience. Why not just standardize and say "Level 5" or whatever Musk is aiming for? They're about to allow other EVs to charge up at their Superchargers (which would require standardized adapters) anyway, right?
I know the next post will probably answer, "Because Elon don't wanna say Level 2" or whatever, but this really would be the best way to truly contrast and compare between brands (that is if other makers cared to assign Levels to their own Super Cruise, Pro-Pilot, Traffic Jam Assist, etc. systems) and then have NHTSA or whoever they choose to use, test and evaluate and RATE THEM (according to already-existing SAE standards) at their respective Levels.
If a maker improves their system, they get re-tested and re-rated.
I know the next post will probably answer, "Because Elon don't wanna say Level 2" or whatever, but this really would be the best way to truly contrast and compare between brands (that is if other makers cared to assign Levels to their own Super Cruise, Pro-Pilot, Traffic Jam Assist, etc. systems) and then have NHTSA or whoever they choose to use, test and evaluate and RATE THEM (according to already-existing SAE standards) at their respective Levels.
If a maker improves their system, they get re-tested and re-rated.
Well then mission accomplished. I’ve seen several videos of people sleeping while using autopilot!
Similar threads
