3 ms·

The article actually quotes Elon saying back when radar was removed, that current radar decreased snr, but a high resolution radar would be better than pure vis

The article actually quotes Elon saying back when radar was removed, that current radar decreased snr, but a high resolution radar would be better than pure vision. So no lie. This fits perfectly with what he claimed.

ra7 4y ago
He claimed just cameras were sufficient for self driving and sold cars based on that, even though they were working on a high resolution radar. Clearly, based on this article they are not sufficient. He also said phantom braking issues would be solved with radar removal. That didn't happen. How many people would have bought the car (or FSD) if they knew a better radar was coming a year down the line that not only helps FSD but also regular Autopilot?
- grecy 4y ago
  > He claimed just cameras were sufficient for self driving The latest builds of FSD beta prove that to be true. The question now becomes what can be done to make it better, and how much better is required. similarly, humans can clearly drive vehicles "sufficiently" after consuming alcohol. Countries disagree on the amount, and the definition of "sufficient".
  - ra7 4y ago
    > The latest builds of FSD beta prove that to be true. Unless the latest builds of FSD beta work without requiring a driver, it doesn’t prove anything to be true. To be a self driving car, it has to actually work without anyone in the driver’s seat. That’s literally the definition.
    - grecy 4y ago
      It works a lot better than most people realize. Obviously there is a person in this seat, but it would have done the same thing if there wasn't... https://twitter.com/WholeMarsBlog/status/1599146605156130816 https://twitter.com/WholeMarsBlog/status/1599146605156130816
      - ra7 4y ago
        It has to be capable of doing it thousands of times to be considered safe enough to remove the driver. Just one drive without disengagement doesn't count. FSD is not repeatable currently, so it's not close L4 self driving. For reference, Waymo and Cruise have a disengagement every 30,000 miles. FSD requires orders of magnitude improvement in reliability to match that.
        grecy 4y ago
        You originally said: > He claimed just cameras were sufficient for self driving And I showed a video where they are, clearly "sufficient". Now you've moved the goal posts to: > doing it thousands of times to be considered safe enough to remove the driver Which is a completely different discussion. It's coming.
        ra7 4y ago
        No moving of goalposts. “Sufficient” means you need to demonstrate L4+ self driving with no driver. You’ve shown L2 driver assistance. By your definition, any car doing basic cruise control is self driving.
        misiti3780 4y ago
        that isnt basic cruise control though. cruise control doesnt make unprotected left turns .... dont hate the player, hate the game ra7
- leobg 4y ago
  How many people would buy an iPhone if they knew a better camera was coming a year down the line?
  - ra7 4y ago
    Wrong analogy. Not many would buy an iPhone if Apple removes the main camera and claims they can magically take pictures from the front camera alone, but reveals they will have a better main camera for next year’s model.
    - leobg 4y ago
      Elon has said it himself. There is never the right time to buy a Tesla. They are always changing things. And next year‘s car will always be better than this year‘s. And to some extend, this is true for anything you can buy in technology. So the idea that „if only people had known“ doesn‘t make any sense. The unspoken criticism here, of course, is that Tesla knew that they were going to re-integrate radar just a year later. And that they were withholding that knowledge from prospective buyers so that they wouldn‘t hold off making the purchase (there‘s a term for that effect, which unfortunately eludes me at this moment). But there is a much simpler explanation. They simply changed their mind. I think it took balls for Tesla to say that radar wasn‘t needed. After all, just a few years earlier they had written one of their big blog posts, which was titled „Seeing the World in Radar“. For them to say, „You know what, we realized we‘ve been on the wrong path. Fusing those sensors is actually making the decision process worse and not better“ - I find that a bold move. And it‘s not like it came out of the blue. Elon had said many times before that many phantom brake events were the result of radar and vision disagreeing with each other. So that issue had been a huge problem for them for a long time. The idea that these people at Tesla are sitting there and thinking about how they can fool the public seems just really crazy to me. From the start, their mission has been very clear: To get as many electric cars on the road as possible. And you just need to look out of the window in order to see that they‘ve kept their word. I‘m really quite puzzled by the amount of suspicion leveled at Tesla on HN. Have they missed their own deadlines on features? Of course they have. Elon promised the first coast-to-coast fully autonomous drive to be accomplished by the end of 2016. He literally said that he has „egg on his face“ in that regard. But it‘s them who said that goal in the first place. And it‘s clear that they are working on the problem, and that they are making progress. Elon Musk has managed to build a rocket company. His team made reusable rockets work - a thing that, to this day, no competitor and no government has been able to do. How can anyone seriously think that this man thinks about fooling the public? If you have power over the physical world - have seen that your team can make things that never existed before - why would you care about having power over people? Power over people is interesting only to those who have no power over nature. It‘s only when you cannot build that you become interested in stealing.

ra7 4y ago

He claimed just cameras were sufficient for self driving and sold cars based on that, even though they were working on a high resolution radar. Clearly, based on this article they are not sufficient. He also said phantom braking issues would be solved with radar removal. That didn't happen. How many people would have bought the car (or FSD) if they knew a better radar was coming a year down the line that not only helps FSD but also regular Autopilot?

grecy 4y ago
> He claimed just cameras were sufficient for self driving The latest builds of FSD beta prove that to be true. The question now becomes what can be done to make it better, and how much better is required. similarly, humans can clearly drive vehicles "sufficiently" after consuming alcohol. Countries disagree on the amount, and the definition of "sufficient".
- ra7 4y ago
  > The latest builds of FSD beta prove that to be true. Unless the latest builds of FSD beta work without requiring a driver, it doesn’t prove anything to be true. To be a self driving car, it has to actually work without anyone in the driver’s seat. That’s literally the definition.
  - grecy 4y ago
    It works a lot better than most people realize. Obviously there is a person in this seat, but it would have done the same thing if there wasn't... https://twitter.com/WholeMarsBlog/status/1599146605156130816 https://twitter.com/WholeMarsBlog/status/1599146605156130816
    - ra7 4y ago
      It has to be capable of doing it thousands of times to be considered safe enough to remove the driver. Just one drive without disengagement doesn't count. FSD is not repeatable currently, so it's not close L4 self driving. For reference, Waymo and Cruise have a disengagement every 30,000 miles. FSD requires orders of magnitude improvement in reliability to match that.
      - grecy 4y ago
        You originally said: > He claimed just cameras were sufficient for self driving And I showed a video where they are, clearly "sufficient". Now you've moved the goal posts to: > doing it thousands of times to be considered safe enough to remove the driver Which is a completely different discussion. It's coming.
        ra7 4y ago
        No moving of goalposts. “Sufficient” means you need to demonstrate L4+ self driving with no driver. You’ve shown L2 driver assistance. By your definition, any car doing basic cruise control is self driving.
        misiti3780 4y ago
        that isnt basic cruise control though. cruise control doesnt make unprotected left turns .... dont hate the player, hate the game ra7
leobg 4y ago
How many people would buy an iPhone if they knew a better camera was coming a year down the line?
- ra7 4y ago
  Wrong analogy. Not many would buy an iPhone if Apple removes the main camera and claims they can magically take pictures from the front camera alone, but reveals they will have a better main camera for next year’s model.
  - leobg 4y ago
    Elon has said it himself. There is never the right time to buy a Tesla. They are always changing things. And next year‘s car will always be better than this year‘s. And to some extend, this is true for anything you can buy in technology. So the idea that „if only people had known“ doesn‘t make any sense. The unspoken criticism here, of course, is that Tesla knew that they were going to re-integrate radar just a year later. And that they were withholding that knowledge from prospective buyers so that they wouldn‘t hold off making the purchase (there‘s a term for that effect, which unfortunately eludes me at this moment). But there is a much simpler explanation. They simply changed their mind. I think it took balls for Tesla to say that radar wasn‘t needed. After all, just a few years earlier they had written one of their big blog posts, which was titled „Seeing the World in Radar“. For them to say, „You know what, we realized we‘ve been on the wrong path. Fusing those sensors is actually making the decision process worse and not better“ - I find that a bold move. And it‘s not like it came out of the blue. Elon had said many times before that many phantom brake events were the result of radar and vision disagreeing with each other. So that issue had been a huge problem for them for a long time. The idea that these people at Tesla are sitting there and thinking about how they can fool the public seems just really crazy to me. From the start, their mission has been very clear: To get as many electric cars on the road as possible. And you just need to look out of the window in order to see that they‘ve kept their word. I‘m really quite puzzled by the amount of suspicion leveled at Tesla on HN. Have they missed their own deadlines on features? Of course they have. Elon promised the first coast-to-coast fully autonomous drive to be accomplished by the end of 2016. He literally said that he has „egg on his face“ in that regard. But it‘s them who said that goal in the first place. And it‘s clear that they are working on the problem, and that they are making progress. Elon Musk has managed to build a rocket company. His team made reusable rockets work - a thing that, to this day, no competitor and no government has been able to do. How can anyone seriously think that this man thinks about fooling the public? If you have power over the physical world - have seen that your team can make things that never existed before - why would you care about having power over people? Power over people is interesting only to those who have no power over nature. It‘s only when you cannot build that you become interested in stealing.