Your claim would actually be a great example of exactly the sort of assuming with 0 evidence or insider knowledge you accused others of though, so giving up is probably best.
Meanwhile back to the known facts-- all the actual states the computer detects don't have anything to do with body-monitoring.
Besides dark and blinded (because the hardware was never designed for this job, so lacks the ability to deal with those situations) we've got
EYES- closed, down, up, or nominal.
These would be when there's sufficient light (but not glare that would blind the camera) and no sunglasses- the cases where it can SEE your eyes.
Which, again, are more limited than cases
better hardware can see your eyes and track them (dark, sunglasses, etc.
And then we've got 2 sunglasses states that use LIKELY in the state, because it has to guess on head position- those are likely nominal and likely eyes down.... again it's guessing about YOUR EYES without being able to see them.
Then we've got "looking left" and "looking right" where again it'd be HEAD position telling it that (since the camera- incorrectly placed for driver eye tracking, can't see your eyes in this case but can see your head)
Lastly there's one state for "PHONE_USE" which is when the camera can see a phone in its field of view.
But again due to poor placement, there's lots of places one could hold a phone where the camera won't think you're using one but you could be.
Notice how
zero of the actual computer states say anything about
body position?
Now- more on the phone use state-
That's what the Tesla camera sees.... it can't see below about top of dash level, and can't even see your left hand
at all which could have a phone in it. And there's any number of mounting solutions available in the 20-30 buck range that'd easily put the phone mounted where your eyes could move to it but the camera wouldn't see it (either lower or on the left of driver)
So when I mention it's
physically incapable of knowing in many cases if you're looking at a phone while keeping your head straight, it's because that's a fact.... as shown by what the camera can actually see (and what it can't) - and the states it has in the software.
Again it's doing its best with HW never meant for this job. Which is
great as it might save Tesla the cost of adding a more expensive driver monitoring system for the EU requirement.
But it's
objectively, factually, and measurably less capable than a system actually intended for the job, with low-light, polarizing, capabilities and mounted in the proper place.
It could be you disagree with the facts, but since my facts come from the CEO of Tesla and the actual computer code running on the car, and the
known physical limits of the hardware including an actual photo showing the camera can't even see the left side of the driver- doing so doesn't make your argument look very good since you've yet to provide
literally anything to support your argument other than insisting you believe it despite every bit of evidence disagreeing with you.
I've at no point spoken to your intelligence at all---I've simply pointed out you appear to be defending a position directly contradicted by
every actual fact available to us.
If you're prefer to stick with it anyway that's entirely your call.
I guess it's the old saying if you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
If you don't, pound the table.
Anyway- to sum up-- All available evidence, including the word of Elon, the actual computer code, and the physical limits of the HW add up to:
Tesla never originally meant to use the HW this way (which excuses the limitations of it)
Tesla is NOW in a situation where they'll be legally
required to include driver monitoring in the EU by next year- and the wheel torque sensor will not cut it..... and they're attempting to use the interior camera originally meant to just watch for robotaxi vandalism to act as a driver monitoring system.
This use of the interior camera to do a decent, if not ideal, job of that function can potentially save Tesla a good bit of money and engineering time not having to add new HW to the vehicle.... assuming the "good enough" of what they've been able to do with it is good enough for EU regulators.
(Note I've been unable to find details on the requirements other than a few sentences when it was passed- if anyone has more specifics on the driver monitoring requirement and what specific capabilities are needed- that'd be informative to the discussion).
As an added bonus- it appears they're also using it to try and weed out dangerous/distracted driving among the early CityStreets (BetaFSD) users.
All the above is generally net
positive[/B[ for and about Tesla, and all based on known info about the stuff involved- so getting pushback on it is pretty weird.
It's actually a great example of that bit from Apollo 13 where the engineer says something like "I don't care what it was MEANT to do, what CAN it do?"
reut.rs
finance.yahoo.com
www.reuters.com
www.caranddriver.com
