2 ms·

Hard to know without being on the team, hence my WAG modifier to the guess. My reasoning is that the Model Y is built on the same chassis as the Model 3. So, a

Hard to know without being on the team, hence my WAG modifier to the guess. My reasoning is that the Model Y is built on the same chassis as the Model 3. So, a quick and dirty solution is to use the same training set results. But, it most likely is something else. This is a roundabout way of saying that maybe - just maybe - the problem is only for the model Y. Am rooting for Tesla to fix it. Maybe a Tesla engineer looks at hacker news? Already filed a complaint with the Tesla Sales Manager. Or perhaps the log of my screaming in terror did the trick. Is prosody for QA sentiment a thing?

md2020 4y ago
I don’t think they segregate their training data based on car models. I mentioned in an above comment, but Comma.ai doesn’t do this and their devices support tons of cars. It would be very odd if a company far smaller than Tesla was able to figure out how to account for different camera positions and Tesla wasn’t. I bought a 2022 model year car and plugged the Comma device in and it just worked, and they would have had pretty much no training data from my car at that point. Just my speculation though.
- musesum 4y ago
  Are there more recent papers? I see one from 2016 [1] But, then again my assumptions are a bit dated as well. Was thinking: could a different horizon on a CNN mid-layer trigger a false positive? Perhaps, classify a slight rise as a bumper or some other obstacle? Maybe a simpler system, like Comma.ai's cameras has looser tolerances. Somewhat akin to the one or two eyes of a Human driver. Maybe it is policy. I could imagine the brand hit to Tesla for every crash - even due to driver error. Maybe phantom breaking is an artifact of erring on the side of caution. Maybe lawyers got involved. (The horror!) Anyway, idle speculation, this. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.01230.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.01230.pdf

md2020 4y ago

I don’t think they segregate their training data based on car models. I mentioned in an above comment, but Comma.ai doesn’t do this and their devices support tons of cars. It would be very odd if a company far smaller than Tesla was able to figure out how to account for different camera positions and Tesla wasn’t. I bought a 2022 model year car and plugged the Comma device in and it just worked, and they would have had pretty much no training data from my car at that point. Just my speculation though.

musesum 4y ago
Are there more recent papers? I see one from 2016 [1] But, then again my assumptions are a bit dated as well. Was thinking: could a different horizon on a CNN mid-layer trigger a false positive? Perhaps, classify a slight rise as a bumper or some other obstacle? Maybe a simpler system, like Comma.ai's cameras has looser tolerances. Somewhat akin to the one or two eyes of a Human driver. Maybe it is policy. I could imagine the brand hit to Tesla for every crash - even due to driver error. Maybe phantom breaking is an artifact of erring on the side of caution. Maybe lawyers got involved. (The horror!) Anyway, idle speculation, this. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.01230.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.01230.pdf