5 ms·

I'm impressed by this comparison between Tesla FSD vs Waymo. whether Tesla is level 2 or 4 autonomous. I'm very impressed with Tesla's FSD. edit: Tesla FSD re

I'm impressed by this comparison between Tesla FSD vs Waymo. whether Tesla is level 2 or 4 autonomous. I'm very impressed with Tesla's FSD. edit: Tesla FSD reach the destination first by taking the high way while Waymo go the local route and far longer to reach the same destination. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv9HtWUf27s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv9HtWUf27s marques brownlee FSD demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nF0K2nJ7N8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nF0K2nJ7N8

thorncorona 3y ago
The problem is that the complexity is hidden in the edge cases. And those edge cases are non obvious and deadly. To put it succinctly, the difference in safety between a car manufactured in 1953 vs 2023 is not fully obvious to a driver who has not been in an accident. Google had a self driving car over 10 years ago, that is at the level of FSD, but their approach is to go straight to L5 for safety. https://youtu.be/TsaES--OTzM https://youtu.be/TsaES--OTzM
adamjcook 3y ago
That "comparison YouTube video" is absurd and dangerous, because, at minimum... A Level 4-capable vehicle (a Waymo vehicle) is an incomparably different system than a Level 2-capable vehicle (a vehicle equipped with FSD Beta). The Waymo vehicle has a design intent such that there is no human driver fallback requirement within their vehicle's Operational Design Domain (ODD). The Tesla vehicle has a de facto design intent such that the human driver is the fallback at all times - which makes the control relationship between the human driver and the automated system exactly the same as if the Tesla vehicle was equipped with no automation at all. The risk profiles and failure mode analyses are Night and Day different and, therefore, the validation traits between these two vehicle are Night and Day different. But, more than that, there are no guarantees that: - The human driver of the FSD Beta-active vehicle shown in that video did not manipulate any of the vehicle controls out-of-view that clandestinely assisted the vehicle without deactivating the automated system (possible and inherent Human Factors safety issues with that aside); and - The creators of this comparison video did not select the most visually-performant run out of several attempts. Naturally, since we are dealing with safety-critical systems here, assumptions of "positive safety" are not compatible with any internal or external analysis. Lastly, I have yet to see a video involving FSD Beta where indirect and "unseen" systems safety issues were satisfied. Appearances can be deceiving and deadly with safety-critical systems.
- valine 3y ago
  That’s a lot of words, but at the end of the day the NHTSA allows FSD beta on the roads. Someday in the distant future Tesla will likely use the data they’ve collected to make statistical inferences to regulators about the safety of the system as a whole. Design intent doesn’t matter now, and won’t matter in the future when the system is retroactively validated for level 5.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    Speculation. Lynching was also allowed at one point, and then it wasn't
    - valine 3y ago
      Did you really just compare Tesla’s driver assist to lynching?
      - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        Doesn't matter - something that used to be common, used to kill people, and eventually society decided it shouldn't be allowed. Asbestos might be better comparison. Point is, you are assuming a certain legal outcome, and there is no reason to believe it won't go the opposite way
  - froh 3y ago
    yah, I'm amazed how humongous piles of paper analyses are considered more safe than evidence that stuff works in the real world. I get statistics are hard. It took 30 years to bust p-value hacking and much longer to get Bayes inference widely accepted. some of us would.love to _understand_ how neural net based automation makes it's decisions. how do you deal with the observable fact that these robots indeed in the real world make the right decisions more often than humans? but we can't explain why, because we didn't construct the robots controls, at least not in the traditional way?
- MangoCoffee 3y ago

thorncorona 3y ago

The problem is that the complexity is hidden in the edge cases. And those edge cases are non obvious and deadly. To put it succinctly, the difference in safety between a car manufactured in 1953 vs 2023 is not fully obvious to a driver who has not been in an accident. Google had a self driving car over 10 years ago, that is at the level of FSD, but their approach is to go straight to L5 for safety. https://youtu.be/TsaES--OTzM https://youtu.be/TsaES--OTzM

adamjcook 3y ago

That "comparison YouTube video" is absurd and dangerous, because, at minimum... A Level 4-capable vehicle (a Waymo vehicle) is an incomparably different system than a Level 2-capable vehicle (a vehicle equipped with FSD Beta). The Waymo vehicle has a design intent such that there is no human driver fallback requirement within their vehicle's Operational Design Domain (ODD). The Tesla vehicle has a de facto design intent such that the human driver is the fallback at all times - which makes the control relationship between the human driver and the automated system exactly the same as if the Tesla vehicle was equipped with no automation at all. The risk profiles and failure mode analyses are Night and Day different and, therefore, the validation traits between these two vehicle are Night and Day different. But, more than that, there are no guarantees that: - The human driver of the FSD Beta-active vehicle shown in that video did not manipulate any of the vehicle controls out-of-view that clandestinely assisted the vehicle without deactivating the automated system (possible and inherent Human Factors safety issues with that aside); and - The creators of this comparison video did not select the most visually-performant run out of several attempts. Naturally, since we are dealing with safety-critical systems here, assumptions of "positive safety" are not compatible with any internal or external analysis. Lastly, I have yet to see a video involving FSD Beta where indirect and "unseen" systems safety issues were satisfied. Appearances can be deceiving and deadly with safety-critical systems.

valine 3y ago
That’s a lot of words, but at the end of the day the NHTSA allows FSD beta on the roads. Someday in the distant future Tesla will likely use the data they’ve collected to make statistical inferences to regulators about the safety of the system as a whole. Design intent doesn’t matter now, and won’t matter in the future when the system is retroactively validated for level 5.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  Speculation. Lynching was also allowed at one point, and then it wasn't
  - valine 3y ago
    Did you really just compare Tesla’s driver assist to lynching?
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      Doesn't matter - something that used to be common, used to kill people, and eventually society decided it shouldn't be allowed. Asbestos might be better comparison. Point is, you are assuming a certain legal outcome, and there is no reason to believe it won't go the opposite way
- froh 3y ago
  yah, I'm amazed how humongous piles of paper analyses are considered more safe than evidence that stuff works in the real world. I get statistics are hard. It took 30 years to bust p-value hacking and much longer to get Bayes inference widely accepted. some of us would.love to _understand_ how neural net based automation makes it's decisions. how do you deal with the observable fact that these robots indeed in the real world make the right decisions more often than humans? but we can't explain why, because we didn't construct the robots controls, at least not in the traditional way?
MangoCoffee 3y ago