4 ms·

I believe that it is not illegal to turn right there. Both streets are one way, and the "no right turn" sign is for the lanes to the left of the pillars. For c

I believe that it is not illegal to turn right there. Both streets are one way, and the "no right turn" sign is for the lanes to the left of the pillars. For context, these pillars in the middle of the road are handled poorly by Tesla FSD and this guy is repeatedly stress testing the system by forcing it to drive there, for YouTube videos. The latest FSD build is the first one that actually recognizes the pillars as obstacles; earlier builds would simply plow into them. What I'm speculating happened here is the new obstacle detection failed and decided that the road ahead was blocked, so the path planner decided it had to turn right despite that not tracking the planned route. As far as the pedestrians, it looks to me like there was plenty of space to turn into the near lane without hitting them, and the pedestrians shouldn't have been starting to cross while the red hand was flashing, but of course a law abiding driver should yield in this situation. I expect many human drivers would choose to turn anyway as long as the pedestrians were far enough away as they appeared to be. But FSD should have stopped.

BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
It is illegal to turn right there without signaling though. > What I'm speculating happened here is the new obstacle detection failed and decided that the road ahead was blocked Know what would be able to tell if the road ahead is blocked? Literally any kind of three dimensional sensing that isn't just single frame image object classification. It's a real shame that no one knows how to do that...
- modeless 5y ago
  Not signaling in advance for what the car likely considers to be an emergency maneuver is a pretty nitpicky criticism. The problem is the unnecessary emergency maneuver, not the lack of signaling. As for lidar, well lidar isn't perfect either. You might get the same behavior from a lidar car if a trash bag happened to be blown into the road ahead by the wind. All types of sensors rely on machine learning to classify their observations. Lidar isn't a shortcut that eliminates that machine learning dependency. Finally, calling what Tesla is doing "single frame image object classification" really betrays your bias here. That hasn't been an accurate description of the system for a long time.
  - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
    I don't care about lidar. What I want is _any_ system that starts from a foundational basis of establishing a geometric model of the environment to determine "flat ground" vs "thing" without first trying to classify its pixels and ignoring the things it can't identify. Humans do that without lidar just fine, but Tesla's failures consistently look like it doesn't even try to establish geometry with its cameras.
    - modeless 5y ago
      That's exactly what they're doing now, predicting depth without relying on object classification first. That's why it doesn't run into the pillars anymore. Obviously it needs a lot of work, but to me it seems plausible that the general approach can work. My biggest concerns are that the cameras aren't good enough and/or that there isn't enough compute on the car.
      - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
        > predicting depth Better than predicting would be enough cameras to get a stereo baseline. But I'm glad at least that 6 years after launch they're finally maybe sort of thinking about it poorly.
        modeless 5y ago
        Yes, they really ought to dramatically upgrade their cameras. No argument there. Their stereo baseline is too small and the cameras have different lenses so it's unclear if they can even get any stereo information at all. The problem for Tesla is that they already sold FSD on cars that have the existing camera setup. I think there's a good chance that they will get to a point where they realize their existing cameras aren't good enough and will have to either come up with retrofit kits or refund owners of existing cars with FSD.
        nikau 5y ago
        > think there's a good chance that they will get to a point where they realize their existing cameras aren't good enough I think it's less realize, and more being forced to acknowledge

BugsJustFindMe 5y ago

It is illegal to turn right there without signaling though. > What I'm speculating happened here is the new obstacle detection failed and decided that the road ahead was blocked Know what would be able to tell if the road ahead is blocked? Literally any kind of three dimensional sensing that isn't just single frame image object classification. It's a real shame that no one knows how to do that...

modeless 5y ago
Not signaling in advance for what the car likely considers to be an emergency maneuver is a pretty nitpicky criticism. The problem is the unnecessary emergency maneuver, not the lack of signaling. As for lidar, well lidar isn't perfect either. You might get the same behavior from a lidar car if a trash bag happened to be blown into the road ahead by the wind. All types of sensors rely on machine learning to classify their observations. Lidar isn't a shortcut that eliminates that machine learning dependency. Finally, calling what Tesla is doing "single frame image object classification" really betrays your bias here. That hasn't been an accurate description of the system for a long time.
- BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
  I don't care about lidar. What I want is _any_ system that starts from a foundational basis of establishing a geometric model of the environment to determine "flat ground" vs "thing" without first trying to classify its pixels and ignoring the things it can't identify. Humans do that without lidar just fine, but Tesla's failures consistently look like it doesn't even try to establish geometry with its cameras.
  - modeless 5y ago
    That's exactly what they're doing now, predicting depth without relying on object classification first. That's why it doesn't run into the pillars anymore. Obviously it needs a lot of work, but to me it seems plausible that the general approach can work. My biggest concerns are that the cameras aren't good enough and/or that there isn't enough compute on the car.
    - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
      > predicting depth Better than predicting would be enough cameras to get a stereo baseline. But I'm glad at least that 6 years after launch they're finally maybe sort of thinking about it poorly.
      - modeless 5y ago
        Yes, they really ought to dramatically upgrade their cameras. No argument there. Their stereo baseline is too small and the cameras have different lenses so it's unclear if they can even get any stereo information at all. The problem for Tesla is that they already sold FSD on cars that have the existing camera setup. I think there's a good chance that they will get to a point where they realize their existing cameras aren't good enough and will have to either come up with retrofit kits or refund owners of existing cars with FSD.
        nikau 5y ago
        > think there's a good chance that they will get to a point where they realize their existing cameras aren't good enough I think it's less realize, and more being forced to acknowledge