5 ms·

The obstacle avoidance sensors on my quadcopter wouldn’t have let me hit that pole. They are just optical cameras, and work at speeds of ~22mph and below. It s

The obstacle avoidance sensors on my quadcopter wouldn’t have let me hit that pole. They are just optical cameras, and work at speeds of ~22mph and below. It seems nuts to me that Tesla can’t do better than a ~$1,500 quadcopter.

ajross 5y ago
> It seems nuts to me that Tesla can’t do better than a ~$1,500 quadcopter. That's probably because you've mischaracterized the issue. It's a streetlight. Obviously Teslas see streetlights. Go for a ride in a friends car (not even one with FSD Beta) and look at the screen. You'll see streetlights rendered by the hundreds. It's basically perfect. It failed here, not because it couldn't see "a pole" but because of a much more specific bug. Specific bugs can, almost always, be fixed.
- cromwellian 5y ago
  There's a YouTube channel I've been watching for longest time that tests the ability of FSD to navigate a monorail suspended by these columns in the middle of the street. It has been failing for years, and he reports the bug every time, and it never gets fixed. Here's the latest, even when it finally succeeds, it is not very convincing or consistent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWc-r0InwVk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWc-r0InwVk
  - ajross 5y ago
    So... if the bug existed before, and appears to be fixed now (but with other issues remaining), isn't that consistent with the theory that this is simply software like any other and that bugs can be fixed? Or do you think that the progress we're seeing currently will just stop? You think that video is as well as the car will ever handle that particular situation to your satisfaction and no further progress is possible?
    - cromwellian 5y ago
      How about that these kinds of bugs are not in a class that can all be solved by a few bug fixes, but represent a very long tail of bugs that need one-off fixes. Most software has to deal with a limited input domain, and when mistakes are made, they are tolerable. And even in the case of software in limited domains, critical bugs remain in commercial software that have been around for decades, with new bugs cropping up as the software is maintained. Now look at FSD: What is the input domain? The entire real world and the incredible diversity of variety of it. And what is the repercussions of a bug? Death or injury. So like I said, these FSD systems should be designed with a kind of "kernel" vs "user" space paradigm. The "kernel" has a mission to absolutely prevent "user" space from crashing the system. In my view, that would mean a backup sensor suite and software design whose highest priority is to avoid collision, rather than driving or navigating. All of Tesla's ML systems should be in the "user" space. They view the world, make predictions to navigate, but any control inputs they yield should always be overridden by the "kernel" if a collision is pending.
      - Isinlor 5y ago
        LIDAR will make this system inoperable in rain and snow. The vision has to be good enough to handle this type of situations with acceptable error rate. Also, sensor fusion is difficult - LIDAR does not see colors, Radar is just weird. Adding more complexity will eliminate some bugs, and result in new bugs.
      - ajross 5y ago
        > How about that these kinds of bugs are not in a class that can all be solved by a few bug fixes, but represent a very long tail of bugs that need one-off fixes. That's non-falsifiable. You can end a discussion that way, but not win an argument. Let's just leave it at "FSD beta appears to be improving rapidly" (c.f. the public history of this stuff since the first public beta users received the build in March) as my response.
- Ancapistani 5y ago
  > That's probably because you've mischaracterized the issue. I don’t think I have. The OA feature on my quadcopter positively prevents you from flying into obstacles, even intentionally. It’s not perfect - power lines, wires, and bare branches aren’t seen 100% of the time - but I’ve never had it trigger a false positive. Why wouldn’t there be a similar system at play here, limiting the actions of the FSD?

ajross 5y ago

> It seems nuts to me that Tesla can’t do better than a ~$1,500 quadcopter. That's probably because you've mischaracterized the issue. It's a streetlight. Obviously Teslas see streetlights. Go for a ride in a friends car (not even one with FSD Beta) and look at the screen. You'll see streetlights rendered by the hundreds. It's basically perfect. It failed here, not because it couldn't see "a pole" but because of a much more specific bug. Specific bugs can, almost always, be fixed.

cromwellian 5y ago
There's a YouTube channel I've been watching for longest time that tests the ability of FSD to navigate a monorail suspended by these columns in the middle of the street. It has been failing for years, and he reports the bug every time, and it never gets fixed. Here's the latest, even when it finally succeeds, it is not very convincing or consistent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWc-r0InwVk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWc-r0InwVk
- ajross 5y ago
  So... if the bug existed before, and appears to be fixed now (but with other issues remaining), isn't that consistent with the theory that this is simply software like any other and that bugs can be fixed? Or do you think that the progress we're seeing currently will just stop? You think that video is as well as the car will ever handle that particular situation to your satisfaction and no further progress is possible?
  - cromwellian 5y ago
    How about that these kinds of bugs are not in a class that can all be solved by a few bug fixes, but represent a very long tail of bugs that need one-off fixes. Most software has to deal with a limited input domain, and when mistakes are made, they are tolerable. And even in the case of software in limited domains, critical bugs remain in commercial software that have been around for decades, with new bugs cropping up as the software is maintained. Now look at FSD: What is the input domain? The entire real world and the incredible diversity of variety of it. And what is the repercussions of a bug? Death or injury. So like I said, these FSD systems should be designed with a kind of "kernel" vs "user" space paradigm. The "kernel" has a mission to absolutely prevent "user" space from crashing the system. In my view, that would mean a backup sensor suite and software design whose highest priority is to avoid collision, rather than driving or navigating. All of Tesla's ML systems should be in the "user" space. They view the world, make predictions to navigate, but any control inputs they yield should always be overridden by the "kernel" if a collision is pending.
    - Isinlor 5y ago
      LIDAR will make this system inoperable in rain and snow. The vision has to be good enough to handle this type of situations with acceptable error rate. Also, sensor fusion is difficult - LIDAR does not see colors, Radar is just weird. Adding more complexity will eliminate some bugs, and result in new bugs.
    - ajross 5y ago
      > How about that these kinds of bugs are not in a class that can all be solved by a few bug fixes, but represent a very long tail of bugs that need one-off fixes. That's non-falsifiable. You can end a discussion that way, but not win an argument. Let's just leave it at "FSD beta appears to be improving rapidly" (c.f. the public history of this stuff since the first public beta users received the build in March) as my response.
Ancapistani 5y ago
> That's probably because you've mischaracterized the issue. I don’t think I have. The OA feature on my quadcopter positively prevents you from flying into obstacles, even intentionally. It’s not perfect - power lines, wires, and bare branches aren’t seen 100% of the time - but I’ve never had it trigger a false positive. Why wouldn’t there be a similar system at play here, limiting the actions of the FSD?