If you look at Mercedes, for example, their marketing page describing their driver assistance technology[0] (with a very similar feature set to Tesla's) uses the word "assist" more than 30 times and in practically every header. Few people would come away from that marketing thinking that their car is going to drive itself without them paying attention.
Tesla, in contrast, advertises their "autopilot" and "full self driving" capabilities. The word "assist" is used exactly once on the Autopilot landing page[1]. The rest of the words and names are carefully chosen to convey a sense of total autonomy.
[0] https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/innovation/autonomous/the-n...
> The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.
[1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware...
They do disable the system in complex situations.
And they give ten seconds warning in advance of this happening.
Which sounds great until you think it through…
It means they schedule the disabling of the system way earlier in the progression of any potential traffic complication. Ten full seconds is long before incidents even start unfolding. The car has to be psychic, but it's not. So in order to accomplish the ten-second warning, what that means is those warnings need to be on a hair trigger with many false positives.
The driver, if they have it enabled, will be constantly getting warnings that the system may disable itself in ten seconds when the car sees even the very slightest possibility that things may potentially get complicated way down the road. I don't see this being endurable for most people.
So my conclusion is this is just marketing hype, until they can get rid of the auto disabling thing.
That 10 seconds simply means that the car must handle any situation safely for at least that amount of time. In practice, this means decisions such as emergency braking and steering must be autonomous but possible more complex scenarios (e.g. moving for emergency vehicle on a tight street) can be delegated to a human (or the system can simply pull over and stop).
They disable the system in cases of rain but at least from the marketing and videos demonstrating it, there’s no prediction of complex scenarios like you described.
which is infinitely better than the <1 second that tesla gives you.
> those warnings need to be on a hair trigger with many false positives.
unless it is actually reasonably good at tracking threats and traffic. look, if you have multiple sensors of different types, then you are able to take firm action when things turn south quicker than a human.
A lot of tesla's problems are because they have shit sensors, and a stupid approach to designing the system (no lidar, no radar, no multiview cameras, no high res GPS or maps) They also have an overwhelming pressure to just yolo shit, rather than test, and redesign.
Not at all. With Tesla you are constantly paying attention, or should be to the same level that you are with any other car.
Meantime it is actively intervening to keep things safer with better follow distance, collision avoidance, lane departure detection, and automatic braking. Most scenarios leading toward accidents are entirely avoided due to all this.
So the <1 second scenarios (which are not talking about warnings, but about when the system was in a complete outlier situation it does not know how to deal with and disabled itself) are very unusual things.
Like "a Prius driver drove off a bridge and is now landing on our hood." Of course the system will disable itself in that situation; what else would you expect? What sensors do you suggest for that?
you should be paying attention, but you are not. Human attention is a difficult thing. from what I recall, in a driving it takes about 7-14 seconds to re-gain situational awareness. This means that 1 second isn't enough.
> Like "a Prius driver drove off a bridge and is now landing on our hood." Of course the system will disable itself in that situation;
I'd expect that the system would slam on the brakes, not disengage to avoid liability. Thats the point here, its not about tech, its about legality. Thats the worse part, the entire system appears to be designed to stop tesla being taken to court.
The human has responsibility for the safe operation of the vehicle, whether they step up and fulfill it or not. If they don’t fulfill their responsibility, all bets are off.
There is no other (equally good or better) way this could work in practice. You can imagine other ways, and I’m guessing you will, but they are imaginary, not practical.
> I'd expect that the system would slam on the brakes
It can and it does, even while they autopilot system is disabled. Who said it wouldn’t?
You should learn more about the cars before hardening your opinions so much.
I doubt its paranoid, I am not worried about it, just rather annoyed that driver's aids are being marketed as something they are not, cheapening an entire industry.
> There is no other (equally good or better) way this could work in practice.
We are literally discussing a company that has another way.
> It can and it does,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45XMhMzMDZY
suggests otherwise.
>You should learn more about the cars before hardening your opinions so much.
I work in machine perception, this is my bread and butter. more over I have worked with life critical infra, and I know corner cutting when I see it.
A lot of people can't get their head around this level of subtlety. Those people probably should not have too much confidence in their take on this, but they do. Dunning-Kruger effect. It seems like you do get it.
Just for completeness to soothe anyone triggered by details missing here, certain features of the current beta version are enabled for drivers who have purchased the SKU. And there is also a full beta release that is available to some drivers who opt in. All of this does not mean FSD exists yet as a public non-beta software release.
Have you considered that this might be intentional on Tesla's part?
In my original post I never said anything about full-self-driving being a real thing, I simply said that their marketing uses that term a lot and leans heavily on those capabilities. I'm well aware of the distinction, but I'm also aware that Tesla seems to intentionally cultivate the ambiguity as to what exactly FSD means. It's not fair of you to cast blame on those who get confused when the company makes the line very, very blurry in their marketing.
EDIT: I'm also not accusing Tesla of outright lying. They can "not claim it exists" while still making sure plenty of people miss that "subtlety".
However, I don't buy into the theory, for the reason that Tesla's proactive, frequent, and aggressive informational notices clarifying the point are impossible to miss when you are in the car, and that goes completely counter to the theory.
And their informational messages are also there prior to that during the buying experience.
And prior to that in the marketing.
Why would Tesla do all these reminders about the human needing to maintain oversight and control, if they are trying to trick you into thinking the opposite?
Haters latch on to the marketing as if it's the only thing, and ignore the caveats in the marketing, and ignore the informational messages during the buying process, and ignore the in-car information and the in-car active measures the car takes to make sure you are paying attention.
Haters dismiss all that and pretend it does not exist.
To what end, I'm not sure, I think it is to stay in a comfort zone regarding a delusion they have about their opinion being the right one. Confirmation bias doing its job.
I do appreciate you bringing up the point. It's a fascinating phenomenon.
Both of these beliefs seem unwarranted: FSD as described in the advertising is most likely much more than 5 years away, and will almost certainly require LIDAR to achieve any kind of safety.
People pay for a pre-order based on the promise that the item will be delivered. If I pre-order a game and it is later cancelled, or even delayed for many years, I will get my money back, I won't just be told "well, you knew it wasn't ready at the time".
Myself, I am skeptical of Elon's timelines. But I also understand they are not his promises, they are just his (foolish, imho) expectations.
He admitted he vastly underestimated the problem… but what he might not admit is continuing to do so. I think he continues to underestimate it.
On the other hand, the power of compounded returns of improvements over time is counterintuitive, and he probably understands that better than most of us. Maybe he used that understanding to get overconfident, or maybe it's still beyond reach. We really don't know. It's still possible that at some point, his team might just crack it. Not just with vision, though. They will need a world model for things like predicting the behavior of a group of children occluded by a bus near a crosswalk.
The money back thing is another question. I hope Tesla offers money back to ease the experience of those who are bitter, but I probably won't take it back myself, because I don't mind supporting the effort even though it seems like the results are far away. I don't think money back was an option previously. As a matter of company survival (which in Elon's mind equates to humanity's survival, take it or leave it, but suffice it to say he doesn't treat it as a normal throwaway company) Tesla just didn't have the money. Now, they probably do.
You said "Yes the actual finished FSD software release does not exist and Tesla does not claim it exists." (emphasis mine).
Even if you didn't say it, the whole false advertising investigation revolves around the difference between FSD being a software or a hardware problem. Tesla marketing and Musk personally have stated clearly (at least in the past) that all cars sold with the FSD option are FSD ready on the hardware side, and that FSD will be delivered as an over-the-air software upgrade to all of them once it's ready.
If they can indeed enable (working) FSD without a hardware upgrade, then they have not lied (even if the timelines they suggested were wildly optimistic). If they in fact need hardware upgrades to support FSD on the cars sold with this option, then they have lied in their advertising, and people who bought this are entitled either to a refund or to a free upgrade when the feature is available.
Is there a physical reason for that? We know that humans do just fine with just ~8cm of stereoscopic separation, and for example cars have the potential for a significantly higher amounts of stereoscopic separation.
Humans and most other animals don't rely solely on stereoscopic vision to navigate the world, we rely on a model of the world where we recognize objects in the image we perceive, know their real size from experience, and use that as well as stereoscopic hints to approximate distances and speeds. We additionally use our understanding of basic physics to assist - we distinguish between an object and its shadow, we can tell the approximate weight of something by the way it moves in the wind (to know if we need to avoid an obstacle on the road), and there are other hints we take into account.
We also take into account our knowledge of the likely behavior of these objects to judge relative speeds (e.g. thr car is moving away, it's not the tree coming closer).
Without this crucial aspect of object recognition and experience about the world, our vision is actually very bad at navigation. If you put us in an artifical environment with, say, pure geometric shapes at various distances, no/fake shadows, objects with non-realistic proportions and so on, we will have much more trouble navigating and not bumping into things even at walking speeds. And this is the level the AI is currently operating at, more or less.
And if you don't believe me, note that humans with one eye, while having impaired depth perception, are still perfectly able to drive safely, with ~0 physical mechanisms for measuring distance (I beleieve the spherical shape of the iris may still give some very subtle hints about distance as you move your eye around, but that is minimal compared to stereoscopic vision). A LOT of our depth perception is just 2D image + object recognition + knowledge about those objects.
However, one benefit that long baseline stereoscopic vision (for example with cameras in corners of the front windscreen) would have compared to a short baseline stereoscopic vision (a human) or a point measurement (LIDAR) that could be relevant for safety would be the ability to somewhat peek around the vehicle in front of you from either side. Admittedly, this may overall be a small-ish benefit relative to a LIDAR but it does provide strictly more information (slightly) than a LIDAR would.
Stereoscopic vision first relies on object recognition of the elements of the pictures taken by each camera, then identifying the objects that are the same between the pictures, and only THEN do you get to do the simple physical calculation to compute distance. If your object recognition algorithm fails to recognize an object in one of the images; or if the higher-level AI fails to recognize that something is the same object in the two pictures, then the stereoscopy buys you nothing and you end up running into a bicycle rider crossing the street unsafely.
LIDAR does have limitations of its own (for example, it can't work in snowy conditions, since it will detect the snow flakes; not sure if the same applies to rain), but the regimes under which it is guaranteed to work are well understood, and the safety promises it can make in those regimes don't rely on ML methods.
Again, claiming that LIDARs make things magically safer sounds like a lot of snake oil to me. Both LIDARs and stereoscopic systems use well-understood physics. Stereoscopic rangefinders were being used in both World Wars for gun-laying and you wouldn't say that you don't need precise measurements for gun-laying.
> Stereoscopic vision first relies on object recognition of the elements of the pictures taken by each camera, then identifying the objects that are the same between the pictures, and only THEN do you get to do the simple physical calculation to compute distance. If your object recognition algorithm fails to recognize an object in one of the images; or if the higher-level AI fails to recognize that something is the same object in the two pictures, then the stereoscopy buys you nothing
As for whether stereoscopic vision relies on object recognition, that seems like a mild stretch to me. Generally it, like for example SfM (of which it is a special case), seems to rely on local textures and features for individual data points -- and in a simple single-dimensional stereoscopic vision case, your set of possible solutions is extremely limited, so matching features from SIFT or SURF in stereoscopic vision is way simpler than even the general SfM case. Those individual data points do not require in any way for individual objects to be recognized and separated. I have NOT seen in my life an SfM solution that would not give you a point cloud if it failed to separate objects -- in fact, SfM software doesn't even try to identify objects when generating a point cloud because it doesn't even operate at such a high level. Note that this actually provides the exact same information as a LIDAR would, namely a point cloud with no insight how the points are related to each other.
Pretty much the only situation where stereoscopic vision or SfM fails to provide depth information is with a surface of highly uniform color completely devoid of textures. Whether this could or couldn't be solved with structured light is an interesting problem.
That’s not Ford’s version of Autopilot, it’s one step further. It’s actually hands off (despite how many treat autopilot). Named BlueCruise.
It’s comparable to GM SuperCruise. It ONLY works on specially mapped divided highways that Ford has approved. It will disengage for strong turns and anything it’s not ready for. You MUST watch the road, it keeps track with a camera on the wheel.
Basically the way it treats the driver is far more conservative. Instead of telling the driver they need to pay attention, it actively monitors them. Instead of saying “you should only use it on these kind of roads“ it actively prevents you.
It’s a fundamentally different approach. Ford’s ACC (not hands free, Co-Pilot 360) constantly monitors for steering wheel torque to ensure your hands are on the wheel and disengages pretty quickly if they’re hot and you ignore the warning.
That said, I have it on my car. It’s freaky as hell to use, kind of scary. Maybe I would use it on long drives in the country, but I just don’t want something else that in charge in even medium traffic.
Ah, thanks! I thought the dealer was saying "Blue's Clues"
This doesn't mean their system is more advanced it actually could mean their system bails earlier due to being less advanced and in turn luckily avoiding this problems.
Or that they are much much less used.
But then Tesla is not really known for good QA.
And in the past there had been multiple unrelated tests for emergency brake systems in which Tesla cars failed really hard. Behaving worse then many much "simpler" less advanced systems. Sometimes to a point of only braking after/when hitting the pedestrian... (mechanized test dummy puppet the Tesla system by it's own feedback recognized as human).
If your most advanced self driving system can't even compete with emergency brake systems by such a large margin I would not be surprising if the Teslas system has major faults tbh.
Edit: Sorry, I should have said _mostly no_.
Last year they pushed an update to use the built-in cabin camera installed in 2021+ cars for "driver attentiveness."
Compared to Ford and Cadillac's IR-illuminated driver attentiveness cameras pointed straight at your eyeballs and can see through sunglasses and works in the dark, the wide-angle cabin camera may not even see your face if you wear a hat, certainly _does not_ have a clear view of your pupils, and doesn't work in the dark or if you have dark glasses on.
https://electrek.co/2021/05/27/tesla-releases-driver-monitor...
https://electrek.co/2021/04/08/tesla-driver-monitoring-syste...
In particular, it has terrible night vision and no IR illumination so it can't see you well enough at night to work.
The fact that it’s a big enough problem for Tesla that they have to monitor it, and still have issues, points to the main difference being user expectations and marketing around these features.
> The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.
[1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware...
> Take a ride in a Tesla with Full Self-Driving Hardware.
That's it. Nowhere is it "clearly labeled as an ad for future software capabilities".
[1] https://vimeo.com/192179727?embedded=true&source=vimeo_logo&...
I don’t see the word autopilot on that page or that video.
[1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware...
[2] https://vimeo.com/192179727?embedded=true&source=vimeo_logo&...
The term autopilot implies autonomous driving everywhere outside of that one small subgroup of people.
Just like spaceship is used space vessel able to travel through space. And teleport is used for moving from one place to another in blink of eye. They don't need to exist.
...is a completely different statement from...
> because of what that term means everywhere outside of aviation industry. Aviation industry is one small niche.
The former implies that the common "understanding" by people who know little of consequence about the field is actually a misconception, whereas the latter insinuates that there do exist separate, valid, non-aviation usages of that word (of which you haven't provided any) which would justify such expectations about Tesla's product.
> They don't need to exist.
Except autopilots actually exist and they partially automate the boring parts of operation of means of transportation such as airplanes and ships. To argue with a fictional notion of a fully autonomous system against an actually existing device is like saying that you don't care what words mean and that you can reuse established terms to describe whatever you want, even if they already mean something very different from what you want them to mean. This is just like for example the East-German reinvention of the word "Aktivist". You're basically peddling Newspeak by saying that autopilot doesn't mean what it actually means.
And with that you've disproven your own argument.
To the extent that "Autopilot" is used to refer to driving technology, it is as the brand name for Tesla's version of such. The name literally cannot be the causal factor as to why Tesla was supposedly wrong to pick that name, if it wasn't associated with autonomous driving prior to Tesla's use of it. Your argument is circular and thus invalid.
Also, I don't think student pilots typically train on autopilots. Those kinds of technology components are usually learned either on one's own or with an instructor/co-pilot after completing basic training. The basic pilot training focuses on safe pilotage from takeoff to landing, including land nav and radio communications, and ignores pretty much all modern technology.
I don't know anything about other manufacturer's systems but I've seen video of Tesla's on autopilot doing unsafe things and read a lot of anecdotes of this as well. Elon Musk has made ridiculously optimistic statements about when Teslas will be self-driving and that by itself can influence people's behavior - perhaps fatally.
Edit: also, Tesla removed Lidar from their system. And there have been well-publicized deaths of people using autopilot.
> rader
Radar is actually short for "RAdio Detection And Ranging"
And Lidar is short for "LIght Detection And Ranging"