6 ms·

This is indeed newly listed as a risk factor in connection with FSD features. Items from the previous 10k where about competition and regulation: - "For exampl

This is indeed newly listed as a risk factor in connection with FSD features. Items from the previous 10k where about competition and regulation: - "For example, Model 3 and Model Y face competition from existing and future automobile manufacturers in the extremely competitive entry-level premium sedan and compact SUV markets, including BMW, Ford, Lexus, Mercedes, Volkswagen Group and Volvo. A significant and growing number of established and new automobile manufacturers, as well as other companies, have entered or are reported to have plans to enter the alternative fuel vehicle market, including hybrid, plug-in hybrid and fully electric vehicles, as well as the market for self-driving technology and other vehicle applications and software platforms." [1] - "In particular, we offer in our vehicles Autopilot and FSD features that today assist drivers with certain tedious and potentially dangerous aspects of road travel, but which currently require drivers to remain engaged. We are continuing to develop our FSD technology with the goal of achieving full self-driving capability in the future. There is a variety of international, federal and state regulations that may apply to self-driving vehicles, which include many existing vehicle standards that were not originally intended to apply to vehicles that may not have a driver. Such regulations continue to rapidly change, which increases the likelihood of a patchwork of complex or conflicting regulations, or may delay products or restrict self-driving features and availability, which could adversely affect our business. " [1] 1: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data//1318605/000156459020047486/tsla-10q_20200930.htm#ITEM_1A_RISK_FACTORS https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data//1318605/00015645902...

ghaff 5y ago
While some of it was almost certainly hucksterism, I think it's also true that a lot of people saw the rapid pace of advance (mostly because of ML computer vision) and just couldn't imagine that the remaining kinks wouldn't be worked out sooner rather than later. And young urbanites in particular so wanted to believe in a world where they wouldn't need to own a car and would effectively have a personal driver to whisk them around and run errands for them. Go back a few years and many here were incredulous if anyone suggested we might be looking at decades to have full door-to-door self-driving.
- halotrope 5y ago
  I think in a recent CES talk Mobileye CEO mentioned that Googles models for speech recognition hit a wall after a certain level of expontial improvement. It is not clear that the required robustness and accuracy can be solved with Deep Learning and cameras alone (Not this year or next anyways). I cannot find the exact quote but the talk in itself is very interesting. [1] He is very bullish on vision but says Tesla is making a huge gamble by betting the house on Deep Learning alone. They seem to be far ahead of Tesla in terms of developing a safe and viable FSD solution with the necessary redundancy. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4BXxPvHi60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4BXxPvHi60
  - ghaff 5y ago
    There's a comment in the last chapter of Russell and Norvig's AI textbook to effect of "We've made steady progress, right up to the top of the tree." There is certainly a school of thought that we'll need to tap into interdisciplinary fields like cognitive science to continue making real advances. It certainly feels as a consumer that things like voice assistants, ML transcription, computer vision systems are not that different than they were a few years ago.
    - halotrope 5y ago
      Yes. The advances in Deep Learning are very impressive and are already proving useful. Still there seem to be no real breakthroughs in actual intelligence, reasoning or something that resembles consciousness.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        A lot of money and smarts has gone into studying cognitive processes and neurophysiology over <shudder> the past five decades. (I first took an Intro to Brain Science course in 1976.) It's actually longer than that. Interesting bit of trivia is that the 1956 MIT IEEE conference that is usually dated as the origin of cognitive science as a field, though the term wasn't coined until later, was just a few months after McCarthy's Dartmouth workshop that's usually considered the origin of AI. I dipped into a recent MIT class on video last year. As far as I can tell, some pretty basic things--like how do children learn--are as imperfectly understood now as they were in the late 70s.

ghaff 5y ago

While some of it was almost certainly hucksterism, I think it's also true that a lot of people saw the rapid pace of advance (mostly because of ML computer vision) and just couldn't imagine that the remaining kinks wouldn't be worked out sooner rather than later. And young urbanites in particular so wanted to believe in a world where they wouldn't need to own a car and would effectively have a personal driver to whisk them around and run errands for them. Go back a few years and many here were incredulous if anyone suggested we might be looking at decades to have full door-to-door self-driving.

halotrope 5y ago
I think in a recent CES talk Mobileye CEO mentioned that Googles models for speech recognition hit a wall after a certain level of expontial improvement. It is not clear that the required robustness and accuracy can be solved with Deep Learning and cameras alone (Not this year or next anyways). I cannot find the exact quote but the talk in itself is very interesting. [1] He is very bullish on vision but says Tesla is making a huge gamble by betting the house on Deep Learning alone. They seem to be far ahead of Tesla in terms of developing a safe and viable FSD solution with the necessary redundancy. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4BXxPvHi60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4BXxPvHi60
- ghaff 5y ago
  There's a comment in the last chapter of Russell and Norvig's AI textbook to effect of "We've made steady progress, right up to the top of the tree." There is certainly a school of thought that we'll need to tap into interdisciplinary fields like cognitive science to continue making real advances. It certainly feels as a consumer that things like voice assistants, ML transcription, computer vision systems are not that different than they were a few years ago.
  - halotrope 5y ago
    Yes. The advances in Deep Learning are very impressive and are already proving useful. Still there seem to be no real breakthroughs in actual intelligence, reasoning or something that resembles consciousness.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      A lot of money and smarts has gone into studying cognitive processes and neurophysiology over <shudder> the past five decades. (I first took an Intro to Brain Science course in 1976.) It's actually longer than that. Interesting bit of trivia is that the 1956 MIT IEEE conference that is usually dated as the origin of cognitive science as a field, though the term wasn't coined until later, was just a few months after McCarthy's Dartmouth workshop that's usually considered the origin of AI. I dipped into a recent MIT class on video last year. As far as I can tell, some pretty basic things--like how do children learn--are as imperfectly understood now as they were in the late 70s.