The «Full» in Full Self-Driving Capability

[lunitiks]

Anyway, about today's website update. I think it's quite significant. (@croman you might want to weigh in on this)

- Page title changed from "Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars" to "Future of Driving". So before, the wording left the impression of something current. The new wording points very clearly to some future, or futuristic.

- "Enhanced" autopilot changed to just plain old "Autopilot", and they removed the teaser that it "has begun rolling out and features will continue to be introduced as validation is completed". As far as promises go, Autopilot is as good as it gets now. Feature complete.

- FSD... FSD, FSD, FSD... Apparently they no longer believe that the HW is sufficient for full self-driving "at a saftety level we believe will be at least twice as good as the average human driver". That wording's just completely removed.

Also, FSD is no longer "dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval", but on "achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience" (as well as regulatory approval, of course).

So..

 

[croman]

Anyway, about today's website update. I think it's quite significant. (@croman you might want to weigh in on this)

- Page title changed from "Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars" to "Future of Driving". So before, the wording left the impression of something current. The new wording points very clearly to some future, or futuristic.

- "Enhanced" autopilot changed to just plain old "Autopilot", and they removed the teaser that it "has begun rolling out and features will continue to be introduced as validation is completed". As far as promises go, Autopilot is as good as it gets now. Feature complete.

- FSD... FSD, FSD, FSD... Apparently they no longer believe that the HW is sufficient for full self-driving "at a saftety level we believe will be at least twice as good as the average human driver". That wording's just completely removed.

Also, FSD is no longer "dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval", but on "achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience" (as well as regulatory approval, of course).

So..

It is clear Tesla is trying to remove value to the software sold in an attempt to make it more realistic. In some ways that is good but clearly it demands accountability in terms of the fact people bought one thing and are not being given what they purchased.

It seems like a clear breach of contract straight out of 1L ("hairy hand case"). I mean, if Tesla just said this from the beginning no one would be upset (and no one would've bought).

 

[lunitiks]

mongo would

 

[Axael]

On one hand, it probably means that the HW3 is now live on all new cars?
It doesn't mean the upgrade won't happen, IMO.

 

[Speedr117]

I think the language of "All New Tesla cars" means that HW 3.0 is shipping now! If you listened to the just released media conference call, you heard Elon say "real time" in regards to FSD/HW 3.0. It was ambiguous, but I think the two together is a good hint.

On the other hand, I also wouldn't hold too much weight on this website update since I think we're all pretty sure they screwed up the Autopilot part with the inclusion of the Navigate on Autopilot features ("automatically change lanes without requiring driver input, transition from one freeway to another, exit the freeway when your destination is near, self-park when near a parking spot and be summoned to and from your garage"). So who knows what else isn't right...

 

[zmarty]

Sooo... how about that HW3 upgrade for people that already paid for FSD?

If new cars get both the hardware and FSD features before they upgrade current owners I will be beyond pissed.

 

[anthonyj]

The true FSD that was hyped up from the start, in my opinion, is the Theranos of the auto industry. FSD will evolve into something really cool that is convenient to use, but it won’t be what people in 2016-2017 thought they would be buying. I hope I’m wrong

 

[rnortman]

Honestly my friend, what do you think you're buying when adding this option?
What do you honestly expect from Tesla, based on these words and sentences?

Imagine you weren't a permabull fanboy enthusiast hippy, or a short/fuddster salivating for banwupsy. Imagine yourself as regular consumer. An average Joe who didn't own stocks, who wasn't a TMC member and couldn't care less about «Elon-time», past broken promises or SpaceX.

This is really hard for me to imagine at this point, but doing my best to approach it with fresh and inexperienced eyes...

I would think I was getting something that was effectively self-driving even though it might never be a driverless robotaxi. I would expect it to be really safe when it was driving and I was watching, safer than if I just did the driving myself. I would expect it to be fairly smooth and naturalistic driving most of the time, not herky jerky most of the time and Oh-man-I-need-to-change-my-pants-now sometimes. I would expect it to be safe even if I got a bit distracted by a notification on my phone, or fiddling with the music. I would probably think it was OK for it to get me home if I was a little tipsy but still capable of paying attention.

And I would be wrong on all counts of course. So in my opinion, their new descriptions create way, way less legal liability for them, while still managing to be rather misleading to the average consumer. They have almost erased legal liability for anybody that clicks the order button right now. I believe that fairly soon (around this time next year, maybe) they will deliver at least gimmicky, useless versions of everything they're currently promising. The parking lot summon thing is the biggest risk for them right now, but note that it will only unpark itself and come find you (with no promises about how long it will take). It won't find a parking spot and park itself anymore, aside from parallel and perpendicular parking which they already do.

And yet, the typical consumer will read that description and think only of rainbows and unicorns.

 

[Speedr117]

FYI, FSD isn't a construction project. It's not a linear process. It's LITERALLY inventing something that has never been done before. The WHOLE industry is spending billions of dollars to accomplish this.

I do feel like Tesla has a clear path to get there though. One that we all get to go on together, with incremental improvements. Worse case scenario, no one can solve it, and we get something like Autopilot on all streets. Even at this level, with needed supervision, it would be a huge improvement to what was available 3 years ago! I know on highway or bumper to bumper trips, it's been a life changer.

 

[strangecosmos]

Yup. it does not say it does intersections (also hear the ARK invest podcast where he says intersections support is not there yet?) it says car is STARTING to make turns effectively, ok? So it's not doing it yet.

If there's a turn, isn't that by definition by an intersection?

 

[iTech]

If there's a turn, isn't that by definition by an intersection?

u-turn has entered the chat

 

[verygreen]

If there's a turn, isn't that by definition by an intersection?

obviously not. it might me a merging street for example. The street itself might be turning with no other choice for you but to turn with it.

Also you can make turns in a field or on a parking lot or other such area where no matter where you go you are ok. I learned to need to interpret Tesla/Elon statements very narrowly now. Do.Not.Imply.Anything.

 

[strangecosmos]

Today's update on Tesla's /autopilot page

View attachment 383661
View attachment 383662
View attachment 383663
View attachment 383664

This is super helpful! I have to say, great job Tesla for clearing up a lot of confusion. I don't see any of this as new information. It's just more clear language, and it's more focused on what customers are getting today or soon, rather than a year or multiple years from now.

- FSD... FSD, FSD, FSD... Apparently they no longer believe that the HW is sufficient for full self-driving "at a saftety level we believe will be at least twice as good as the average human driver". That wording's just completely removed.

Just because it's removed from the page doesn't mean the aspiration is cancelled. I think they are just trying to be more clear to customers what they're getting with a car, and also trying to avoid overpromising.

 

[OPRCE]

It is clear Tesla is trying to remove value to the software sold in an attempt to make it more realistic. In some ways that is good but clearly it demands accountability in terms of the fact people bought one thing and are not being given what they purchased.

It seems like a clear breach of contract straight out of 1L ("hairy hand case"). I mean, if Tesla just said this from the beginning no one would be upset (and no one would've bought).

I would say they are removing exposure to future liabilities, but that does not change the contract existing with those who e.g. pre-paid for FSD, which remains to be satisfied or otherwise resolved by mutual agreement.

Sooo... how about that HW3 upgrade for people that already paid for FSD?

If new cars get both the hardware and FSD features before they upgrade current owners I will be beyond pissed.

AFAIK they always said HW3 will appear in new production first then be followed by the retrofitting. When they respectively will be switched live with features is a separate issue and could still happen simultaneously.

 

[strangecosmos]

The audio from Tesla’s recent conference call with the media is now public:

$35,000 Model 3 Conference Call Webcast | Tesla, Inc.

You can read a (fairly mangled) transcript here:

Tesla Feb 28 Secret Conference Call Transcript - Full Self Driving; Model 3 & More

[posting this in both relevant threads in case some people are only reading one thread]

(also hear the ARK invest podcast where he says intersections support is not there yet?)

I take it you’re referring to Elon’s comments at 23:40 in the podcast:

“So we focused on highways for that reason. Then intersections are the next thing and some of them — you have a lot of variants in intersections. So that's what, you know, we're working on right now. And you know, it's, it's working at a development level, no problem recognizing stop signs and traffic lights, but you do get ambiguity and some complex intersections with traffic lights. Like which one's the light, the right light to focus on. Even if you're a person, it's not always clear so that that's what we're working on there. So we'll try and make that work in the U.S. and then we'll extend that functionality elsewhere.”
​

So, Elon seems to say the intersections software is “working at a development level”. Clearly, it’s not working at a production level, or customers would already have the software. But it also doesn’t appear to be true that the software doesn’t exist yet.

Terms like “working” or “not there yet” are bit hazy. Arguably, anything that isn’t production ready isn’t “working”. Also arguably, the DARPA Urban Challenge code from 2007 was “working” in some sense — if it didn’t work at all, no one could have won the competition.

What seems to be the case from Elon’s remarks is that Tesla has software in development that can handle intersections some of the time, but not all of the time. Therefore it’s not ready for production deployment.

 

[iTech]

So, Elon seems to say the intersections software is “working at a development level”. Clearly, it’s not working at a production level, or customers would already have the software. But it also doesn’t appear to be true that the software doesn’t exist yet.

What's your definition of development and production level?

 

[electronblue]

If there's a turn, isn't that by definition by an intersection?

obviously not. it might me a merging street for example. The street itself might be turning with no other choice for you but to turn with it.

Also you can make turns in a field or on a parking lot or other such area where no matter where you go you are ok. I learned to need to interpret Tesla/Elon statements very narrowly now. Do.Not.Imply.Anything.

Indeed.

There can be a massive difference between ”a turn” and ”an unprotected left turn on a high-speed road”.

Waymo for example has no problems with ”a turn” in general. The latter is trickier for them too because it is problematic in general. Couriers route their cars to avoid such turns...

As @verygreen implies, since when reading Elon optimistically has worked out? The most pessimistic interpretation is usually better... when he says ”a turn”, do not assume ”an unprotected left turn on a high-speed road”. You may not even be able to assume an intersection. He might even just mean a tight — urban tight — bend in the road.

 

[mongo]

He might even just mean a tight — urban tight — bend in the road.

A tight bend in the road would be stretching

“I’m driving a development version of Autopilot right now, and it works extremely well recognizing traffic lights and stop signs,” Musk added. “It’s starting to make turns effectively in complex urban environments.”

Tesla’s controversial ‘full self-driving’ version of Autopilot is back


I can understand the pessimism given this tweet from 2016:

Will post video of a Tesla navigating a complex urban environment shortly. That was what took the extra couple of days.

However, a one off video run is different from daily fleet testing.

 

[electronblue]

@mongo Perhaps tight bend is stretching it but a 90 degree urban turn right definitely is not. Much easier than an unprotected turn left.

 

[mongo]

@mongo Perhaps tight bend is stretching it but a 90 degree urban turn right definitely is not. Much easier than an unprotected turn left.

Sure....
But unless you are doing a right on red, isn't that just summon with extreme right bias? Don't hit cars or pedestrians.

Australian J lefts (or whatever they are called) should be fun.

(I do understand the pessimism)