7 ms·

Article is misleading. Tesla sent a letter to the CA DMV requesting approval for a feature which they referred to as "City Streets" which they say is level 2,

by NickM 6y ago

Article is misleading. Tesla sent a letter to the CA DMV requesting approval for a feature which they referred to as "City Streets" which they say is level 2, and will continue to be level 2 as it is developed. They specifically say in this very document that they will develop higher levels of autonomy in the future, so it's pretty clear that the "final release of City Streets will continue to be level 2" quote is just referring to the particular subset of functionality that they're seeking approval for. From the very same letter, there is also this quote: Please note that Tesla’s development of true autonomous features (SAE Levels 3+) will follow our iterative process (development, validation, early release, etc.) and any such features will not be released to the general public until we have fully validated them and received any required regulatory permits or approvals.

redis_mlc 6y ago
> they will develop higher levels of autonomy in the future Any bozo can make claims about the future. And you're a bozo for believing them. Do you believe everything you see in writing?
ra7 6y ago
"City Streets" is part of "Full Self Driving" $10,000 package though. They are calling it "Full Self Driving", but a subset of functionality will always be level 2? And the FSD Beta is also level 2 because it only works on city streets? That seems clearly misleading. What's next? "Really, truly full self driving" that's actually level 3+?
- grumple 6y ago
  These are incremental releases of gradually improving functionality. Their plan is to get to level 3+. People who buy it know what they are getting, and if they don't, it's entirely willful ignorance. I don't even own a Tesla yet I've read plenty about the actual capabilities and the fact that these cars can't truly drive themselves.
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    I don’t think we’ll see “full self driving” within the lifespan of several cars from now. Yet, if I bought a Tesla I’d still need to sweat the decision of buying the FSD option because Musk insists the resale value of cars without it will be significantly smaller without it.
- dheera 6y ago
  I always assumed by "full" they meant that it doesn't just do autopilot on highways, but is capable of handling local roads, traffic lights, stop signs, as well. Basically it can drive from local address A to local address B assuming good conditions. I'm a robotics person though so it was always pretty clear to me that I couldn't possibly think of being able to deploy an L4 system with their set of sensors.
  - ra7 6y ago
    When you call it "full" and "self driving", I don't know how many qualifiers you can attach to it. I know it's not anywhere close to driving by itself, but between the naming and Elon Musk constantly talking about how level 5 (I mean, level 5 is the ultimate form of autonomous driving) is just around the corner, it's pretty easy to see that as misleading customers. All while they don't even bother to get a driverless testing permit from CA DMV.
    - dheera 6y ago
      Yeah, of course. But it was always clear to me. The problem is (a) the stock market is full of idiots that won't listen to real engineers like us, and listen to some bullshitty CEOs and analysts instead (b) the SEC and stock market is perfectly optimized and incentivized to maximize the amount of marketing bullshit coming out of company PR. If people wanted more honestly worded things out of companies, we need to stop nailing companies every time they don't "beat" earnings estimates every quarter, and begin to understand how real science and real technological advancement happens. The way NASA is funded, for example, is the exact opposite, and minimizes bullshit, but NASA and Tesla share a lot in common in terms of what they're trying to accomplish for humanity. EDIT: Okay maybe NASA wasn't a good example. But in any case, the current structure of public companies and letting a bunch of gullible <strike>sheep</strike> average citizens collectively determine the value of a company based on what a bunch of <strike>clowns</strike> non-engineers in suits at Wall Street try to make of a highly technical venture isn't a system optimized for minimizing bullshit, it's quite the opposite.
      - rodgerd 6y ago
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > They are calling it "Full Self Driving", but a subset of functionality will always be level 2? Well, yes? That's how subsets work. Thought experiment, pretend "City Streets" was called "Level 2 Mode". Would you be upset that "Level 2 Mode" will always be level 2? Or that "Level 2 Mode" is a subset of "Full Self Driving"?
  - ra7 6y ago
    > Thought experiment, pretend "City Streets" was called "Level 2 Mode". That would be an accurate name for "city streets". Except currently, it's part of an umbrella feature called "full self driving" that's supposedly going to be "level 5" soon. This is it with most things with FSD. Qualifiers after qualifiers for a clearly misleading name.
  - Traster 6y ago
    I’d be upset that level 2 mode was released 3 years after they promised level 5 would be ready.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    It's funny people think Level 2 is a subset of Level 4 and 5. Kind of like calling NNs a "subset" of General AI
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      The functionality is a subset, yes.
  - isignal 6y ago
    No, that's not how subsets work. If a subset of features that is part of "full self driving" cannot ever reach level 4/5, then "full self driving" is not possible. "full" is a marketing terminology but the English meaning of it would be that it works comprehensively in the majority of cases. If it doesn't work on city streets, which is a major subset of use cases, how can it be "full"?
    - 6y ago
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > "Really, truly full self driving" that's actually level 3+? Prediction: * Ridiculous Self Driving * Ludicrous(+) Self Driving * Plaid Self Driving
loganfrederick 6y ago
That is where there is a disconnect between the Tesla marketing language and technical language. They publicly advertise and collect cash for pre-sales of "Full Self Driving". Most Hacker News technologists (a generalization for sure) would reserve a phrase that bold for Levels 4 and 5. But here they are in writing stating that they are currently only at Level 2. So a couple core questions around Tesla are: - Is it acceptable to take pre-orders from the average consumer for a feature that might be 10 years away? - Is it ethical to use exaggerated marketing speak for specific technical functions (to give a non-Tesla example, this is like when I see companies implementing rule-based decision trees or linear regression and calling their apps "Artificial Intelligence")?
- teleclimber 6y ago
  It's not just technical and marketing, it's legal too. And this article references emails from tesla legal team. So legal is telling dmv that it's L2 so it doesn't have to get permits, but that doesn't mean the tech isn't destined to be L3 when it's fully developed and they are ready to submit themselves to regulatory scrutiny.
  - ctvo 6y ago
    Your theory here is they're purposefully downplaying their level of self-driving technology to avoid regulatory processes? Are they going to keep winking at customers and letting them think it's level 3 so they continue to take their hands off the steering wheel and do other things like countless Youtube videos already capture? It's a little disturbing how people will jump through so mental hoops to give Tesla the benefit of the doubt.
    - oblib 6y ago
      I don't really see that as giving Tesla the benefit of the doubt. I read it as describing what may be a ploy to avoid the regulatory processes and that may be a valid point.
- GuB-42 6y ago
  > this is like when I see companies implementing rule-based decision trees or linear regression and calling their apps "Artificial Intelligence" AI means so many things that it has become as meaningful as "magic". Some don't consider anything less than human-level an AI (this is also called AGI or strong AI). On the other hand enemy behavior in video games is commonly called "AI" even when it is as simple as pacman ghosts. In the same way that magic can literally mean "impossible" or be applied to card tricks accessible to 5 year olds.
Someone1234 6y ago
> Tesla sent a letter to the CA DMV requesting approval Can you cite that? It directly contradicts the linked article which claims that the CA DMV contacted Tesla to clarify if Tesla were testing a vehicle without proper permit. If Tesla were seeking some kind of approval it makes their email very confusing as Tesla is insisting that they don't need additional permits/approval for the "City Streets" beta.
- choppaface 6y ago
  Here's the letter: https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-tesla-robotaxi--fsd-emails/ https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-te...
  - Someone1234 6y ago
    That seems to confirm what the article said. The first email appears to be dated December 20, 2019 from the CA DMV to Tesla. Here's the original email sent to Tesla: > Subject: Announcement of Full Self Driving Feature. > Al we’ve seen press reports that Mr. Musk announced on Twitter that a “Tesla holiday software update has FSD sneak preview...” Many people generally translate “FSD” to be “full self-driving.” Is Tesla releasing a full self-driving software update to any California Tesla owners? As you are aware, the deployment of autonomously driven vehicles on public roads in California requires a permit to deploy. At this time Tesla does not have a permit to deploy. Please provide an update on what this announcement for the deployment of the feature means in terms of autonomous operation on public roads in California? I don't see anywhere where Tesla are seeking approval, quite the opposite in fact. Tesla are saying they shouldn't be required to seek approval for "City Streets."
    - choppaface 6y ago
      Oh I see what you're saying. I believe they are "seeking approval" for City Streets ... as a Level 2 product. Likely some discrepancy between what Musk says and what the rest of the company does.
sschueller 6y ago
Yeah, they just keep moving the carrot. By the time Tesla comes with FSD the current model lines will have reached their end of live and the $6k+ that people paid will be lost with the car.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- adrr 6y ago
  An attorney general from a state will start to go after them if they don't come up FSD any time soon. My guess is the settlement will be that they can carry it forward to another Tesla. No of the features really work with the current FSD like smart summon. And there's probably tens of millions of money poured into a feature that doesn't limit up to expectations.
  - rodgerd 6y ago
    If they were performing as their CEO represented, the cars would be have driving themselves cross-country to delivery themselves to customers years ago. The time to have them up about lying what would be delivered and when was a looooong time ago.
jdxcode 6y ago
Yeah, the word “current” in the headline is doing some heavy lifting
choppaface 6y ago
Cynical take: Tesla GC says "We completely understand and agree that we won’t deploy any autonomous vehicle feature without a deployment permit" [ https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-tesla-robotaxi--fsd-emails/ https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-te... ]. Absolutely certain that Tesla won't take liability for city driving unless they absolutely must. Especially when so many Tesla drivers are so open to accepting the liability. If Tesla's competitors (e.g. Waymo etc) launch taxis, then Tesla might change course and do the same. But if Tesla doesn't have to do that, they're going to play a game with California where they get to argue over if their cars are level 2 or actually self-driving or whatever .... all the while Tesla users continue to assume liability and help train Tesla's software.... which is what Tesla really wants to continue as long as possible. These docs don't really shed light on Tesla's FSD plans so much as they illustrate the lengths to which Tesla will go to skirt regulation and liability. All the chatter and rumors about Tesla FSD just drive more attention and more potential users (trainers) into their pool.
- sidibe 6y ago
  Having more "trainers" probably doesn't matter one bit to Tesla, but their $10k is quite useful
de6u99er 6y ago
If you think it trough, Tesla is misleading in making anyone velieve their curren tech will ever have full self-driving capabilities. What's really required for full self-drivung capabilities is infrastructure support. This will come as large eatablished car manufacturers and governments start defining standards for that. Here's a very simple example. Imagine a stop sign. Tesla's and Google's aproach is to detect the stoo sign via cameras. This can be problematic when the canera can't see the stoo sign (weather, tree branches blocking it partly, a truck in front of you). It would be much simpler if the stoo signbwas able to communicate to self driving cars that they have to stop. Now imagine an accident because your Tesla didn't recognize the stoo sign. Who is going to pay for the damages? Tesla for false advertising? The city for not cutting down the three? Your insurance? You?
- brokenmachine 6y ago
  This is precisely why fully self driving on existing infrastructure won't happen. I don't understand how anybody can believe that it will.

by NickM 6y ago

redis_mlc 6y ago

> they will develop higher levels of autonomy in the future Any bozo can make claims about the future. And you're a bozo for believing them. Do you believe everything you see in writing?

ra7 6y ago

"City Streets" is part of "Full Self Driving" $10,000 package though. They are calling it "Full Self Driving", but a subset of functionality will always be level 2? And the FSD Beta is also level 2 because it only works on city streets? That seems clearly misleading. What's next? "Really, truly full self driving" that's actually level 3+?

grumple 6y ago
These are incremental releases of gradually improving functionality. Their plan is to get to level 3+. People who buy it know what they are getting, and if they don't, it's entirely willful ignorance. I don't even own a Tesla yet I've read plenty about the actual capabilities and the fact that these cars can't truly drive themselves.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  I don’t think we’ll see “full self driving” within the lifespan of several cars from now. Yet, if I bought a Tesla I’d still need to sweat the decision of buying the FSD option because Musk insists the resale value of cars without it will be significantly smaller without it.
dheera 6y ago
I always assumed by "full" they meant that it doesn't just do autopilot on highways, but is capable of handling local roads, traffic lights, stop signs, as well. Basically it can drive from local address A to local address B assuming good conditions. I'm a robotics person though so it was always pretty clear to me that I couldn't possibly think of being able to deploy an L4 system with their set of sensors.
- ra7 6y ago
  When you call it "full" and "self driving", I don't know how many qualifiers you can attach to it. I know it's not anywhere close to driving by itself, but between the naming and Elon Musk constantly talking about how level 5 (I mean, level 5 is the ultimate form of autonomous driving) is just around the corner, it's pretty easy to see that as misleading customers. All while they don't even bother to get a driverless testing permit from CA DMV.
  - dheera 6y ago
    Yeah, of course. But it was always clear to me. The problem is (a) the stock market is full of idiots that won't listen to real engineers like us, and listen to some bullshitty CEOs and analysts instead (b) the SEC and stock market is perfectly optimized and incentivized to maximize the amount of marketing bullshit coming out of company PR. If people wanted more honestly worded things out of companies, we need to stop nailing companies every time they don't "beat" earnings estimates every quarter, and begin to understand how real science and real technological advancement happens. The way NASA is funded, for example, is the exact opposite, and minimizes bullshit, but NASA and Tesla share a lot in common in terms of what they're trying to accomplish for humanity. EDIT: Okay maybe NASA wasn't a good example. But in any case, the current structure of public companies and letting a bunch of gullible <strike>sheep</strike> average citizens collectively determine the value of a company based on what a bunch of <strike>clowns</strike> non-engineers in suits at Wall Street try to make of a highly technical venture isn't a system optimized for minimizing bullshit, it's quite the opposite.
    - rodgerd 6y ago
Dylan16807 6y ago
> They are calling it "Full Self Driving", but a subset of functionality will always be level 2? Well, yes? That's how subsets work. Thought experiment, pretend "City Streets" was called "Level 2 Mode". Would you be upset that "Level 2 Mode" will always be level 2? Or that "Level 2 Mode" is a subset of "Full Self Driving"?
- ra7 6y ago
  > Thought experiment, pretend "City Streets" was called "Level 2 Mode". That would be an accurate name for "city streets". Except currently, it's part of an umbrella feature called "full self driving" that's supposedly going to be "level 5" soon. This is it with most things with FSD. Qualifiers after qualifiers for a clearly misleading name.
- Traster 6y ago
  I’d be upset that level 2 mode was released 3 years after they promised level 5 would be ready.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  It's funny people think Level 2 is a subset of Level 4 and 5. Kind of like calling NNs a "subset" of General AI
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    The functionality is a subset, yes.
- isignal 6y ago
  No, that's not how subsets work. If a subset of features that is part of "full self driving" cannot ever reach level 4/5, then "full self driving" is not possible. "full" is a marketing terminology but the English meaning of it would be that it works comprehensively in the majority of cases. If it doesn't work on city streets, which is a major subset of use cases, how can it be "full"?
  - 6y ago
throw0101a 6y ago
> "Really, truly full self driving" that's actually level 3+? Prediction: * Ridiculous Self Driving * Ludicrous(+) Self Driving * Plaid Self Driving

loganfrederick 6y ago

That is where there is a disconnect between the Tesla marketing language and technical language. They publicly advertise and collect cash for pre-sales of "Full Self Driving". Most Hacker News technologists (a generalization for sure) would reserve a phrase that bold for Levels 4 and 5. But here they are in writing stating that they are currently only at Level 2. So a couple core questions around Tesla are: - Is it acceptable to take pre-orders from the average consumer for a feature that might be 10 years away? - Is it ethical to use exaggerated marketing speak for specific technical functions (to give a non-Tesla example, this is like when I see companies implementing rule-based decision trees or linear regression and calling their apps "Artificial Intelligence")?

teleclimber 6y ago
It's not just technical and marketing, it's legal too. And this article references emails from tesla legal team. So legal is telling dmv that it's L2 so it doesn't have to get permits, but that doesn't mean the tech isn't destined to be L3 when it's fully developed and they are ready to submit themselves to regulatory scrutiny.
- ctvo 6y ago
  Your theory here is they're purposefully downplaying their level of self-driving technology to avoid regulatory processes? Are they going to keep winking at customers and letting them think it's level 3 so they continue to take their hands off the steering wheel and do other things like countless Youtube videos already capture? It's a little disturbing how people will jump through so mental hoops to give Tesla the benefit of the doubt.
  - oblib 6y ago
    I don't really see that as giving Tesla the benefit of the doubt. I read it as describing what may be a ploy to avoid the regulatory processes and that may be a valid point.
GuB-42 6y ago
> this is like when I see companies implementing rule-based decision trees or linear regression and calling their apps "Artificial Intelligence" AI means so many things that it has become as meaningful as "magic". Some don't consider anything less than human-level an AI (this is also called AGI or strong AI). On the other hand enemy behavior in video games is commonly called "AI" even when it is as simple as pacman ghosts. In the same way that magic can literally mean "impossible" or be applied to card tricks accessible to 5 year olds.

Someone1234 6y ago

> Tesla sent a letter to the CA DMV requesting approval Can you cite that? It directly contradicts the linked article which claims that the CA DMV contacted Tesla to clarify if Tesla were testing a vehicle without proper permit. If Tesla were seeking some kind of approval it makes their email very confusing as Tesla is insisting that they don't need additional permits/approval for the "City Streets" beta.

choppaface 6y ago
Here's the letter: https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-tesla-robotaxi--fsd-emails/ https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-te...
- Someone1234 6y ago
  That seems to confirm what the article said. The first email appears to be dated December 20, 2019 from the CA DMV to Tesla. Here's the original email sent to Tesla: > Subject: Announcement of Full Self Driving Feature. > Al we’ve seen press reports that Mr. Musk announced on Twitter that a “Tesla holiday software update has FSD sneak preview...” Many people generally translate “FSD” to be “full self-driving.” Is Tesla releasing a full self-driving software update to any California Tesla owners? As you are aware, the deployment of autonomously driven vehicles on public roads in California requires a permit to deploy. At this time Tesla does not have a permit to deploy. Please provide an update on what this announcement for the deployment of the feature means in terms of autonomous operation on public roads in California? I don't see anywhere where Tesla are seeking approval, quite the opposite in fact. Tesla are saying they shouldn't be required to seek approval for "City Streets."
  - choppaface 6y ago
    Oh I see what you're saying. I believe they are "seeking approval" for City Streets ... as a Level 2 product. Likely some discrepancy between what Musk says and what the rest of the company does.

sschueller 6y ago

Yeah, they just keep moving the carrot. By the time Tesla comes with FSD the current model lines will have reached their end of live and the $6k+ that people paid will be lost with the car.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
adrr 6y ago
An attorney general from a state will start to go after them if they don't come up FSD any time soon. My guess is the settlement will be that they can carry it forward to another Tesla. No of the features really work with the current FSD like smart summon. And there's probably tens of millions of money poured into a feature that doesn't limit up to expectations.
- rodgerd 6y ago
  If they were performing as their CEO represented, the cars would be have driving themselves cross-country to delivery themselves to customers years ago. The time to have them up about lying what would be delivered and when was a looooong time ago.

jdxcode 6y ago

Yeah, the word “current” in the headline is doing some heavy lifting

choppaface 6y ago

Cynical take: Tesla GC says "We completely understand and agree that we won’t deploy any autonomous vehicle feature without a deployment permit" [ https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-tesla-robotaxi--fsd-emails/ https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-te... ]. Absolutely certain that Tesla won't take liability for city driving unless they absolutely must. Especially when so many Tesla drivers are so open to accepting the liability. If Tesla's competitors (e.g. Waymo etc) launch taxis, then Tesla might change course and do the same. But if Tesla doesn't have to do that, they're going to play a game with California where they get to argue over if their cars are level 2 or actually self-driving or whatever .... all the while Tesla users continue to assume liability and help train Tesla's software.... which is what Tesla really wants to continue as long as possible. These docs don't really shed light on Tesla's FSD plans so much as they illustrate the lengths to which Tesla will go to skirt regulation and liability. All the chatter and rumors about Tesla FSD just drive more attention and more potential users (trainers) into their pool.

sidibe 6y ago
Having more "trainers" probably doesn't matter one bit to Tesla, but their $10k is quite useful

de6u99er 6y ago

If you think it trough, Tesla is misleading in making anyone velieve their curren tech will ever have full self-driving capabilities. What's really required for full self-drivung capabilities is infrastructure support. This will come as large eatablished car manufacturers and governments start defining standards for that. Here's a very simple example. Imagine a stop sign. Tesla's and Google's aproach is to detect the stoo sign via cameras. This can be problematic when the canera can't see the stoo sign (weather, tree branches blocking it partly, a truck in front of you). It would be much simpler if the stoo signbwas able to communicate to self driving cars that they have to stop. Now imagine an accident because your Tesla didn't recognize the stoo sign. Who is going to pay for the damages? Tesla for false advertising? The city for not cutting down the three? Your insurance? You?

brokenmachine 6y ago
This is precisely why fully self driving on existing infrastructure won't happen. I don't understand how anybody can believe that it will.