OFFICIAL BUTTON WATCH

[caligula666]

how so? Waymo only operates in one city (two if you are very optimistic) where as you can activate fsd beta 9.3 almost anywhere so long as you have it.

I mean, yet seems like the antithesis of opinion to me and is closer to fact.

Yes, I get that, but because Waymo only operates today in specific locations doesn’t mean it cannot operate in other areas. We don’t know for sure why Waymo is not in multiple cities. One option, but just an option, is that, as you say, it is because they CANNOT drive in other cities and that extensive setup work would be required for each additional geo. But another totally valid option might be that Waymo is more interested in fine-tuning the depth of their use-cases, and that for this they don’t need to spread think geographically, as this would simply increase their operational costs for no good reasons i.e. that might be a purely operational choice. Do I know whether that’s the reason? Absolutely not, and that’s my point.

Similarly, you are saying that FSD can go almost anywhere. Well, for now this means US-only (which, if you have driven in and outside of the US, you can pretty much see that things are quite different) and YouTube is full of video where some use cases are barely handled (as for typical non-US use cases, there is absence of information to judge) - so they are clearly lacking depth in how they handle the use cases compared to Waymo.

So while Waymo seems to have a lot more depth in how they handle their use-cases vs. Tesla, it is not proved whether it is at the expense of geo coverage, this is just an assumption. As such it might « feel good » to say that Waymo is only in 1-2 cities vs. Tesla, I don’t think it is more than this at this point.

 

[qdeathstar]

Yes, I get that, but because Waymo only operates today in specific locations doesn’t mean it cannot operate in other areas. We don’t know for sure why Waymo is not in multiple cities.

actually though, we do. Waymo relies on high definition maps which need to be frequently updated and without them it doesn’t work. A confined space where the roads are well defined and understood limits degrees immensely. Once you start removing those boundaries the task becomes infinitely more complex. I am surprised you are really trying to argue otherwise. There certainly is an argument to be made for focusing on commercially viable fsd not available to the consumer within specific geofences areas. But that doesn’t mean waymo can be expanded into operating on any road with a flick of a switch. Tesla’s problem is much hard to solve than Waymos.

Similarly, you are saying that FSD can go almost anywhere. Well, for now this means US-only

well, I’m not planning to drive from the Kansas to Tokyo so who gives a flying ****. This point reeks of desperation.

 

[Terminator857]

actually though, we do. Waymo relies on high definition maps which need to be frequently updated and without them it doesn’t work.

Waymo has stated that creating and updating HD maps is not a big deal. The reason Waymo doesn't expand in my opinion is safety. There are edge cases it doesn't handle, and perhaps common cases it doesn't handle either. For example: a couple of years ago we saw video of Waymo not being able to merge on the freeway. Haven't seen evidence that it has conquered that problem.

 

[qdeathstar]

Waymo has stated that creating and updating HD maps is not a big deal. The reason Waymo doesn't expand in my opinion is safety. There are edge cases it doesn't handle, and perhaps common cases it doesn't handle either. For example: a couple of years ago we saw video of Waymo not being able to merge on the freeway. Haven't seen evidence that it has conquered that problem.

It’s not a big deal as long as you only operates in high density cities (eg 10 largest in us) which is certainly commercially viable as an Uber. But if you want to be able to drive anywhere else good luck with that.

 

[aronth5]

You it doesn't have to come down to Waymo vs. Tesla. Both can exist just fine and both can make money.

 

[Terminator857]

You it doesn't have to come down to Waymo vs. Tesla. Both can exist just fine and both can make money.

Agree, but people like to discuss / argue which one is ahead. A few, one?, feel strongly that Waymo is ahead and like to argue their points to no end. Similarly some feel strongly that Tesla is ahead and a few if those think everyone who disagrees is lacking neurons. Welcome to the virtual battleground. Suggest strong use of the ignore button.

 

[EVNow]

Yes, but FSD Beta is only L2 while Waymo is L4.

Yes, but Waymo is geofenced. You can also say an elevator is L4.

 

[EVNow]

There are edge cases it doesn't handle, and perhaps common cases it doesn't handle either.

That doesn't sound like L4 ....

 

[diplomat33]

That doesn't sound like L4 ....

Of course it is. L4 does not mean that it can handle every single edge case. L4 just means that in a limited ODD, you don't need a driver since the ADS can do all the tasks from steering/speed, detecting objects, detecting failures and performing fallback. Remember the SAE levels are about the role of the driver and the system. The SAE levels don't measure how safe the autonomous driving is. But safety does help determine when you can deploy the autonomous vehicle.

 

[rxlawdude]

Of course it is. L4 does not mean that it can handle every single edge case. L4 just means that in a limited ODD, you don't need a driver since the ADS can do all the tasks from steering/speed, detecting objects, detecting failures and performing fallback. Remember the SAE levels are about the role of the driver and the system. The SAE levels don't measure how safe the autonomous driving is. But safety does help determine when you can deploy the autonomous vehicle.

Can't help but point out that L4 and L5 still have "other safety" situations where a DRIVER is responsible. I guess that includes traffic cones.

 

[aronth5]

What we'll likely end up over the next few years is a hybrid of the SAE levels so arguing back and forth over this level or that level isn't necessarily very fruitful now. But have at it!!

 

[rxlawdude]

What we'll likely end up over the next few years is a hybrid of the SAE levels so arguing back and forth over this level or that level isn't necessarily very fruitful now. But have at it!!

I just love giving the "Level 4" minus dude credit for his unflinching support of a service he probably would be more at home at on a website where there are fanbois for Waymo. All five of them.

 

[diplomat33]

Can't help but point out that L4 and L5 still have "other safety" situations where a DRIVER is responsible. I guess that includes traffic cones.

No, it does not include cones. "Other safety" is things like securing your children in their car seats or trip planning. It is outside the scope of the SAE levels.

Here is what Dr. Koopman says:

"Other safety" is not defined by J3016, but refers in general to operational safety considerations outside the scope of J3016 such as ensuring that children are properly secured before the vehicle moves and whether a trip route or destination is expected to be acceptably safe during trip planning.

 

[rxlawdude]

No, it does not include cones. "Other safety" is things like securing your children in their car seats or trip planning. It is outside the scope of the SAE levels.

Here is what Dr. Koopman says:

Um, then why is the word DRIVER there? You can't play this both ways. If it said "PASSENGER" then I'd agree, but there is no DRIVER by definition in both L4 and L5.

 

[diplomat33]

Um, then why is the word DRIVER there? You can't play this both ways. If it said "PASSENGER" then I'd agree, but there is no DRIVER by definition in both L4 and L5.

Yes. That is a mistake on Dr. Koopman's part. He should have said "Passenger".

 

[rxlawdude]

Yes. That is a mistake on Dr. Koopman's part. He should have said "Passenger".

Yet you defended that term in your post 1713???

 

[EVNow]

L4 just means that in a limited ODD,

We have talked about this before. That definition is less than useless. Anyone can be level 4 in trivial ODD - like a well marked empty st road where it never rains.

 

[daktari]

Wonder if they have to retrain the whole system to get it working in Europe? Rome City streets, or any Italian city is wastly different from US "city streets". Wonder also if FSD will allow you to cross the channel and continue on the Isles?

I hope, with the next level version 10, that some of the testers have a friend or two testing Waymo and will try to shadow FSD'it. Or maybe ask the Waymo tester where their destination is?

 

[diplomat33]

Yet you defended that term in your post 1713???

No, I did not.

Let me try to explain:

In J3016, SAE does not include what Koopman calls "other safety" since it is not relevant to autonomous driving.

So for tasks that are relevant to autonomous driving, L4 means no driver needed.

But Koopman is adding an extra category "other safety". And he is saying that the "driver" is responsible for that "other safety". For L2-L3, it would be a driver. For L4-L5, it would be the passenger. Koopman should make that distinction but doesn't.

But "other safety" is not relevant to the actual performance of autonomous driving. So you could have L4 with no driver but the passenger is responsible for "other safety".

 

[diplomat33]

We have talked about this before. That definition is less than useless. Anyone can be level 4 in trivial ODD - like a well marked empty st road where it never rains.

It is not useless. It still tells you that you don't need a driver for the ODD, in contrast with L0-L3 that do require a driver. Also, the SAE is very clear that the level alone is not sufficient to describe the entire capability of the autonomous driving and that you need to also specify the ODD (unless L0 or L5):

Accordingly, accurately describing a feature (other than at Levels 0 and 5) requires identifying both its level of driving automation and its operational design domain (ODD). As provided in the definitions above, this combination of level of driving automation and ODD is called a usage specification, and a given feature satisfies a given usage specification. (J3016, p32)