5 ms·

I just can’t understand why you’d give up control to a system that’s clearly still in beta. The cost of failure is way too high to take the risk.

by spaceman_2020 4y ago

cloutchaser 4y ago
The whole point should be you don't. You are giving live feedback to the most advanced ML learning system ever (probably). Which hopefully in a few years will actually work. You are not (currently) using an autonomous car. If you think so you are an idiot.
- yladiz 4y ago
  > You are not (currently) using an autonomous car. If you think so you are an idiot. Let's define autonomous as self driving. According to their marketing page[1]: > Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features, and full self-driving capabilities—through software updates designed to improve functionality over time. So it has capabilities of autonomous driving, which means a Tesla can be considered an autonomous car. Unless I'm an idiot for trusting what their marketing page tells me, of course. 1: https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot
  - salawat 4y ago
    >Unless I'm an idiot for trusting what their marketing page tells me, of course. Oh, you sweet summer child...
  - Someone 4y ago
    They phrase it weirdly (accidentally/possibly/probably/certainly (take your pick) in order to confuse the readers), but all that says is that they eventually will provide the software running on the hardware you buy today to actually do it.
    - yladiz 4y ago
      I disagree. When I read this: > Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features, and full self-driving capabilities—through software updates designed to improve functionality over time. What I understand is this: Tesla cars come with hardware capable of providing features for the Autopilot system and come with full self driving capabilities. The functionality related to these capabilities will be improved over time through software updates. If they meant that there will eventually be software that works with the hardware in the system, but there isn't software today, they should word it differently.
      - capitalsigma 4y ago
        It is intended to be parsed as: The cars come with advanced hardware. What is the hardware capable of? It is capable of self driving. How will the hardware achieve the thing it is capable of? Through software updates (that have not yet landed)
        HereBeBeasties 4y ago
        That might be what some weaselly lawyer argues it means in court, or what someone deeply familiar with it all would infer. But in no way is that how any reasonable lay person would read it. "Improve functionality over time" implies that the basic functionality of full self-driving is there already, and that it will be improved. No reasonable person would take it to mean "does not exist yet, and may never do". They would also take "capable of" to mean "right now", not at some nebulous point in the future, especially given the context of the feature being a paid upgrade. The definition of "full" is "not lacking or omitting anything; complete". One might reasonably expect "full self-driving" to mean a human does not need to intervene or monitor. I.e. What the industry commonly calls autonomous driving level 5. They clarify what they mean elsewhere on their web site: > Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability > are intended for use with a fully attentive driver, who has their > hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment. > While these features are designed to become more capable over time, > the currently enabled features do not make the vehicle autonomous. So they don't even claim level 1 autonomy. Even with your version, the hardware may very well never be capable of full self-driving at all. There's no evidence to suggest it will be - hopes, dreams and promises don't count. And they've done an upgrade on the earlier-gen Model S cars already, where they presumably made similar claims. The whole thing is misleading at best, downright trading standards fraud at worst. For what it's worth, my Model 3's carriageway departure warning kicks in randomly and the amount of phantom braking it does even on basic cruise control is terrible. Autopilot is worse. I find monitoring it in autopilot mode significantly more stressful than just driving the car myself. I wouldn't trust FSD at all, and certainly not enough to want to fork out the silly money it is.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  > the most advanced ML learning system ever Imagine believing this.
  - discordance 4y ago
    I can believe this but also believe that our "most advanced ML systems" aren't up to the autonomous driving mark yet.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      You would have to believe that Tesla, particularly, had that system, and not Google or DoD. Tesla has something much more valuable: pigeons and dupes.
ra7 4y ago
Because they're led to believe all this public beta "testing" actually does something to improve the system. So they go out on roads, enable FSD and click the feedback button when it makes a mistake. It's pure theatre as it does nothing to a system fundamentally poor.
- bitexploder 4y ago
  They /are/ the training data and trainers in a very literal sense. Every time they correct or take control over FSD I imagine it gets fed back into the training data. Will it ever create a fully self driving system? Maybe.
  - ra7 4y ago
    It's useful for polishing an already mature system. But FSD is poor at even doing the basics because of their (lack of) sensors. They need more than low quality 30 second video clips if they ever want a usable autonomous system.
  - jws 4y ago
    I’m sure other people use FSD as a bad chauffeur, but around town I use it when I’m willing to be extra alert and train it. There is a button I press when the car has messed up and the surrounding data gets sent back to the Tesla mothership as a defect. If I’m not willing to be in vigilance mode I just drive myself.
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      thanks for sharing your individual lack of experience with a broadly systemic issue (overconfidence in FSD, believing their marketing, etc)
  - thomaskcr 4y ago
    That's not true and Karpathy has confirmed it multiple times. They can create a fingerprint for data they want the system to feed back to the mothership and they may manually label datasets fed back through the report button on the MCU, but disengagements are not a signal they use at all.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
electric_mayhem 4y ago
Straw man argument. Or, you know, maybe highly specific to lazy, edge-case idiots. Autopilot and fsd still both specifically require an attentive driver. Responsible adults who understand the systems will use them appropriately- and that might mean “not at all” in unusual/chaotic conditions. For the rest, there’s Darwin awards.
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  Your "straw man!" claims ignore that for every 'safety' related comment or action Tesla has done, they've had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it. First there was zero monitoring of attention. No steering wheel torque, nothing. Then when pushed and threatened they added it, and set the "hands on steering wheel" interval to "ONCE every fifteen MINUTES". Then they had to be threatened to reduce that to a sensible value. All the while, Tesla: "the driver is only in the seat for legal purpose - the car is driving itself", or "use Summon to bring your car to you while you deal with a fussy child". So you can call them lazy edge-case idiots all you like. But you can't pretend that Tesla hasn't absolutely fostered and nurtured this culture, because they have.
  - electric_mayhem 4y ago
    I covered all that. Someone abandons common sense and abdicates responsibility for themselves in favor of believing the hype from a money-crazed billionaire? Prime candidates for Darwin awards, whether they own a tesla or not.
    - linspace 4y ago
      We are terrible at maintaining 100% concentration over extended periods of time while nothing is happening. People fall asleep driving. The mind starts to wander. We get distracted by our children. I don't think it's about believing the hype. It's about having a system put in place which encourages you to stop paying attention. I do think there have been great improvements in car safety thanks to AI. My car self brakes if it detects a pedestrian while I'm in reverse. It flashes lights in my side mirrors if another vehicle passes by. I think those systems are safety first and if you buy a car they are the responsibility of the car maker and not the buyer. I don't think you would expect people checking the airplane model when taking a flight. It's the responsibility of the airline and the manufacturer.

I just can’t understand why you’d give up control to a system that’s clearly still in beta. The cost of failure is way too high to take the risk.

cloutchaser 4y ago

The whole point should be you don't. You are giving live feedback to the most advanced ML learning system ever (probably). Which hopefully in a few years will actually work. You are not (currently) using an autonomous car. If you think so you are an idiot.

yladiz 4y ago
> You are not (currently) using an autonomous car. If you think so you are an idiot. Let's define autonomous as self driving. According to their marketing page[1]: > Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features, and full self-driving capabilities—through software updates designed to improve functionality over time. So it has capabilities of autonomous driving, which means a Tesla can be considered an autonomous car. Unless I'm an idiot for trusting what their marketing page tells me, of course. 1: https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot
- salawat 4y ago
  >Unless I'm an idiot for trusting what their marketing page tells me, of course. Oh, you sweet summer child...
- Someone 4y ago
  They phrase it weirdly (accidentally/possibly/probably/certainly (take your pick) in order to confuse the readers), but all that says is that they eventually will provide the software running on the hardware you buy today to actually do it.
  - yladiz 4y ago
    I disagree. When I read this: > Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features, and full self-driving capabilities—through software updates designed to improve functionality over time. What I understand is this: Tesla cars come with hardware capable of providing features for the Autopilot system and come with full self driving capabilities. The functionality related to these capabilities will be improved over time through software updates. If they meant that there will eventually be software that works with the hardware in the system, but there isn't software today, they should word it differently.
    - capitalsigma 4y ago
      It is intended to be parsed as: The cars come with advanced hardware. What is the hardware capable of? It is capable of self driving. How will the hardware achieve the thing it is capable of? Through software updates (that have not yet landed)
      - HereBeBeasties 4y ago
        That might be what some weaselly lawyer argues it means in court, or what someone deeply familiar with it all would infer. But in no way is that how any reasonable lay person would read it. "Improve functionality over time" implies that the basic functionality of full self-driving is there already, and that it will be improved. No reasonable person would take it to mean "does not exist yet, and may never do". They would also take "capable of" to mean "right now", not at some nebulous point in the future, especially given the context of the feature being a paid upgrade. The definition of "full" is "not lacking or omitting anything; complete". One might reasonably expect "full self-driving" to mean a human does not need to intervene or monitor. I.e. What the industry commonly calls autonomous driving level 5. They clarify what they mean elsewhere on their web site: > Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability > are intended for use with a fully attentive driver, who has their > hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment. > While these features are designed to become more capable over time, > the currently enabled features do not make the vehicle autonomous. So they don't even claim level 1 autonomy. Even with your version, the hardware may very well never be capable of full self-driving at all. There's no evidence to suggest it will be - hopes, dreams and promises don't count. And they've done an upgrade on the earlier-gen Model S cars already, where they presumably made similar claims. The whole thing is misleading at best, downright trading standards fraud at worst. For what it's worth, my Model 3's carriageway departure warning kicks in randomly and the amount of phantom braking it does even on basic cruise control is terrible. Autopilot is worse. I find monitoring it in autopilot mode significantly more stressful than just driving the car myself. I wouldn't trust FSD at all, and certainly not enough to want to fork out the silly money it is.
jeffbee 4y ago
> the most advanced ML learning system ever Imagine believing this.
- discordance 4y ago
  I can believe this but also believe that our "most advanced ML systems" aren't up to the autonomous driving mark yet.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    You would have to believe that Tesla, particularly, had that system, and not Google or DoD. Tesla has something much more valuable: pigeons and dupes.

ra7 4y ago

Because they're led to believe all this public beta "testing" actually does something to improve the system. So they go out on roads, enable FSD and click the feedback button when it makes a mistake. It's pure theatre as it does nothing to a system fundamentally poor.

bitexploder 4y ago
They /are/ the training data and trainers in a very literal sense. Every time they correct or take control over FSD I imagine it gets fed back into the training data. Will it ever create a fully self driving system? Maybe.
- ra7 4y ago
  It's useful for polishing an already mature system. But FSD is poor at even doing the basics because of their (lack of) sensors. They need more than low quality 30 second video clips if they ever want a usable autonomous system.
- jws 4y ago
  I’m sure other people use FSD as a bad chauffeur, but around town I use it when I’m willing to be extra alert and train it. There is a button I press when the car has messed up and the surrounding data gets sent back to the Tesla mothership as a defect. If I’m not willing to be in vigilance mode I just drive myself.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    thanks for sharing your individual lack of experience with a broadly systemic issue (overconfidence in FSD, believing their marketing, etc)
- thomaskcr 4y ago
  That's not true and Karpathy has confirmed it multiple times. They can create a fingerprint for data they want the system to feed back to the mothership and they may manually label datasets fed back through the report button on the MCU, but disengagements are not a signal they use at all.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

electric_mayhem 4y ago

Straw man argument. Or, you know, maybe highly specific to lazy, edge-case idiots. Autopilot and fsd still both specifically require an attentive driver. Responsible adults who understand the systems will use them appropriately- and that might mean “not at all” in unusual/chaotic conditions. For the rest, there’s Darwin awards.

FireBeyond 4y ago
Your "straw man!" claims ignore that for every 'safety' related comment or action Tesla has done, they've had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it. First there was zero monitoring of attention. No steering wheel torque, nothing. Then when pushed and threatened they added it, and set the "hands on steering wheel" interval to "ONCE every fifteen MINUTES". Then they had to be threatened to reduce that to a sensible value. All the while, Tesla: "the driver is only in the seat for legal purpose - the car is driving itself", or "use Summon to bring your car to you while you deal with a fussy child". So you can call them lazy edge-case idiots all you like. But you can't pretend that Tesla hasn't absolutely fostered and nurtured this culture, because they have.
- electric_mayhem 4y ago
  I covered all that. Someone abandons common sense and abdicates responsibility for themselves in favor of believing the hype from a money-crazed billionaire? Prime candidates for Darwin awards, whether they own a tesla or not.
  - linspace 4y ago
    We are terrible at maintaining 100% concentration over extended periods of time while nothing is happening. People fall asleep driving. The mind starts to wander. We get distracted by our children. I don't think it's about believing the hype. It's about having a system put in place which encourages you to stop paying attention. I do think there have been great improvements in car safety thanks to AI. My car self brakes if it detects a pedestrian while I'm in reverse. It flashes lights in my side mirrors if another vehicle passes by. I think those systems are safety first and if you buy a car they are the responsibility of the car maker and not the buyer. I don't think you would expect people checking the airplane model when taking a flight. It's the responsibility of the airline and the manufacturer.