lunitiks
Cool James & Black Teacher
But Tesla has to do it.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But Tesla has to do it.
Valid point. What do you think, however, of the fact that HW2.0 and 2.5 sport different camera- and radar sensors? Mustn't there be different NNs, or at least, different capabilities? I know too little about the consequences of having one fleet with RCCC and one with RCCB. And I'm just now trying to work out the difference between the radarsObviously, Navigate on Autopilot runs on HW2 and maybe some other FSD features will as well. But in the long term, I can’t see Tesla trying to run everything on both HW3 and HW2.
Valid point. What do you think, however, of the fact that HW2.0 and 2.5 sport different camera- and radar sensors? Mustn't there be different NNs, or at least, different capabilities? I know too little about the consequences of having one fleet with RCCC and one with RCCB. And I'm just now trying to work out the difference between the radars
Different hardware. (Different part numbers, different color filters.)Did we find out whether the difference between the colours the cameras can perceive is the firmware or the hardware?
It seems dubious that Tesla would try to run FSD on HW2 since this would require the AI team to spend its time — one of Tesla’s most scarce, precious resources — designing two versions of the vision neural network: one for HW2 and one for HW3.
That's because his job -- if I'm not mistaken -- is to obfuscate, cherry-pick and otherwise dissemble in order to advance a particular position.
This is not meant to be a personal attack. This is a statement of fact about @strangecosmos's day job over at Seeking Alpha, where he writes essays espousing particular viewpoints (in other words, opinion reporting rather than news reporting -- there's a very good reason that reputable news outlets separate these two things). It also does not mean that the particular position(s) he advances in his opinion reporting are incorrect or harmful.
Though, as a matter of my own opinion, those positions are both incorrect and harmful.
(or if they SW2.0 the SW2.0, a bigger NN does the work of fitting the FSD NN into the HW2.x capabilities)
The time investment would be reducing features and camera data rates to find a maximal solution.
There’s so much noise and confusion in here about SAEs levels it’s unbearable.
J3016 is a taxonomy. It deals with the question: To which degree is the human expected to perform the driving tasks? And it lets us assign a Level from 0-5. "0" meaning the human is absolutely necessary in all respects, "5" meaning the human is not expected to do anything, anytime, anywhere.
J3016, chapter 8.1:
As for mr. Lex Friedman, he said that J3016 is “the most widely accepted taxonomization of autonomy”. And that it’s useful for describing the system, for legal discussion and for policy making. Which, of course, is right.
But then Friedman goes on to say that he thinks/feels J3016 is not useful for “design and engineering” because he thinks/feels there are/should be only two “real” categories – one where the system “is not fully responsible”, and one where the system “is fully responsible”.
Which is where he messes up.
First of all, responsibility is a legal matter - so it’s exactly what Friedman began saying J3016 is useful for describing.
Secondly, Friedman doesn’t seem to appreciate the fact that J3016 draws an unambiguous line between L0-L2 and L3-L5, where you are doing the driving in L0-L2, while you are not doing the driving in L3-L5. Because your car manufacturer has designed the system such that you're not supposed to be driving.
Which is why your car manufacturer must take legal responsibility for the car's actions in L3-L5. The manufacturer can’t tell you that you’re not supposed to be monitoring the car’s surroundings, and at the same time say you’re liable because you failed to monitor the car’s surroundings.
So J3016 is as much about manufacturer intent than anything else. Chapter 8.2:
So when Waymo publicly writes that their system is Level 4, it's because it's their design intent. It's what Waymo expects of it, and takes responsibility for.
Tesla on the other hand publicly makes it clear you must «keep your hands on the wheel at all times», that the car is not autonomous, and that YOU are responsible. So L2 is Tesla’s design intent with NoA, Auto Lane Change and Summon. They’re not intended to be, which is why they’re not, L3 features.
Get it? Good. Now wake me up when Tesla demonstrates anything L3.
If they could do that, why release HW3 at all?
Elon did get Karpathy to spend time working on a NN solution to rain-sensing windshield wipers, so... Maybe ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It could save a lot of money.
Ultimately though I think there comes a time when HW2 hits its limits, even with all the tricks, and needs to be replaced with HW3 for safety reasons.
My orange is certainly L5
There is also potentially a data incentive. Upgrading HW2 cars is a way to get HW3 cars on the road. HW3’s NN/NNs will likely be able to make better predictions (i.e. judgments or determinations). That predictions data could be useful. Instead of uploading the raw camera data, Tesla could just upload the predictions data. If the predictions are accurate, that saves getting a human to manually label the raw camera data. This wouldn’t be useful for supervised learning of perception, obviously — where’s the source of ground truth? — but it could, in theory, be useful for weakly supervised learning of perception or for behavioural cloning (a.k.a. imitation learning).
Unfortunately this has not stopped Tesla from not following through on promises before. Many AP1 promises remain undelivered (including the navigation-based exit-taking for 8.1 in December 2016) as does the Model S free lighted vanity mirrors promise for all cars. Of course P85D never got its HP and P90DL never reached its performance numbers but went through several versions for new buyers leaving old buyers in the dust...
They seem to promise enough to keep current sales going but over time those promises may not be kept.
I genuinely hope Tesla does retrofit HW3 on AP2/2.5 cars. Despite my cynicism, I still hold out hope — I think the risks are there but this is by no means a closed chapter yet luckily.
Yes I got a refund on my EAP for about 150$The only thing they can do is to drag it out forever, but how long can they legally do that? Didn't they get a class action for lacking feature parity with AP1?