6 ms·

"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 leve

by 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
      > But it was always clear to me. So when the CEO went on stage and said cars would be self-delivering via fully autonomous driving it was obvious to you that his statement was a lie?
      - dheera 6y ago
        Yes. I know not to listen to CEOs when they say things like that. They're effectively puppets. I've also probably coded way more lines of autonomous driving code than Elon Musk himself. That isn't to say I don't respect him and his vision, but I'm pretty certain I have a better idea of timelines than the BS he's forced to say to the public.
        Isinlor 6y ago
        In my opinion Musk actually believes in his timelines. He does exactly the same mistakes without financial incentives e.g. Falcon Heavy. His "COVID panic is dumb" and "it's gone by April" are memes by now. Then he will also openly say that he believes shares are too high, so of course shares dropped. Not to mention that SEC is going after him and Tesla for his stupid tweets. Either he is an alien playing 5 dimensional chess with time-travel, or he is pathologically overoptimistic. He is especially overoptimistic about AI, so it leads him to make stupid predictions about when we will have cars without steering wheels.
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

by ra7 6y ago

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
    > But it was always clear to me. So when the CEO went on stage and said cars would be self-delivering via fully autonomous driving it was obvious to you that his statement was a lie?
    - dheera 6y ago
      Yes. I know not to listen to CEOs when they say things like that. They're effectively puppets. I've also probably coded way more lines of autonomous driving code than Elon Musk himself. That isn't to say I don't respect him and his vision, but I'm pretty certain I have a better idea of timelines than the BS he's forced to say to the public.
      - Isinlor 6y ago
        In my opinion Musk actually believes in his timelines. He does exactly the same mistakes without financial incentives e.g. Falcon Heavy. His "COVID panic is dumb" and "it's gone by April" are memes by now. Then he will also openly say that he believes shares are too high, so of course shares dropped. Not to mention that SEC is going after him and Tesla for his stupid tweets. Either he is an alien playing 5 dimensional chess with time-travel, or he is pathologically overoptimistic. He is especially overoptimistic about AI, so it leads him to make stupid predictions about when we will have cars without steering wheels.

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