4 ms·

"It's only a matter of time" means nothing. It was only a matter of time in Cesar's age before we got supercomputers and planes. Tesla is near the bottom of th

"It's only a matter of time" means nothing. It was only a matter of time in Cesar's age before we got supercomputers and planes. Tesla is near the bottom of the pack on self-driving tech, with no real hopes of going beyond the level 2 self-driving of FSD, which is objectively worse than just driving yourself. There are already multiple companies with either actual self-driving fleets (e.g. Waymo) or limited use cases of full autonomy with company liability (Mercedes), and many others with working prototypes for one or the other, or even beyond. Tesla is living in their marketing bubble of "FSD robotaxis next year now", where they have been living since 2018 or earlier, while the rest of the pack barely even sees them in the rear view mirror.

make_it_sure 2y ago
you're so wrong. do more research. Driving on a geo-fenced area is much much simple than what Tesla is trying. Eventually they can do that as well without problems if they can't generalise.
- imtringued 2y ago
  You do realise that waymo doesn't have drivers in their cars anymore? How about you do research on Tesla's competitors? Having a driver intervene is several orders of magnitude less advanced. Easily more than a decade away from the goal of self driving. You can build a geofenced area that spans every single road in the USA so the fact that something is geofenced tells you absolutely nothing.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  Sure, but "we're trying something harder" doesn't mean anything. Waymo is succeeding at a well defined, useful form of driverless tech. They will probably be able to extend this, maybe slowly, to more and more cities. Tesla is failing at everything they're promising, and not delivering anything useful along the way (FSD as it exists today is more dangerous and more demanding than regular driving).
  - maxlin 2y ago
    You're comparing a warehouse to a train even talking about Waymo. FSD has no limit. Recently it has been tested around in Europe and Asia, and the existing tech basically "just works" because sensorily and thought-wise it's made to function like the common meatbag between the seat and the wheel, just better. No, making the skyscraper 100 meters higher isn't going to make the train less relevant even though the tracks aren't all built yet.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      Again, FSD is just not doing anything that interesting. It only handles the easy scenarios, and punts to a driver for everything else, at a moment's notice. And it still constantly fails, per everyone who tries it, in even very simple situations. Look at what this article author found: that's just not something that happens with Waymo or Mercedes.
      - maxlin 2y ago
        You're pretty much exactly 180 degrees in the wrong in that one. Due to the deep NN-based approach, FSD can react to the minutest of changes like seeing ahead of the car in front, or even hand signals by pedestrians to decide how to drive. Again, even mentioning Waymo here proves you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Might as well compare FSD to trains, trains also "steer themselves" lol
        tsimionescu 2y ago
        The hardest parts of self driving are related to interacting with others on the road - other cars, pedestrians, cyclists, animals, debris etc. Waymo has mostly solved these problems, in a real environment, with only some simple limitations in top speed (and a major limitation for climate - they don't work in heavy rain, fog, snow, etc). Sure, the environment is fully mapped out, so it's not easy to scale their solution. But they've solved an extremely difficult problem extremely well, with some well defined constraints. FSD has no defined constraints, sure. But it is FAR from solving the problems that Waymo has solved, and far from solving the problems that the CEO has promised to solve. If you hacked a Tesla to run with FSD without a driver in the car and let it roam in real traffic, even in Phoenix, it will crash within the first 100km. It's very, very far from being able to safely work without human intervention. And NNs are inherently very noisy, so they are not a promising approach for a safety critical system. Combining that with pure camera vision, which is very limited even in animals that have literally had billions of years of training, is a fool's errand. FSD as it exists right now does not work, and will never work. Time will show this: Tesla will either give FSD up, or will switch to camera+LIDAR.
maxlin 2y ago
"near the bottom of the pack" Are you _trying_ to make people not take you seriously? No one has the kind of tech Tesla unveiled back at Autonomy day, which is still state of the art technology wise. 100w for that much NN compute was a genius move to manage to get the talent in to build and to get early. Now that they've had more time to develop the tech, FSD is looking better than ever and in a few years Tesla will be licensing this around for a pretty penny. Eventually governments might even mandate it considering the comparative danger of human drivers.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  No, I'm looking at actual results, not the tech stack. They are the only company that is only attempting Level 2, all the others are targeting or have achieved Level 3, or above. And Tesla isn't even doing Level 2 well, from the limited data that we have (since they of course refuse to release more). Look at any video about FSD on the internet and you'll see very frequent, inexplicable errors, in common simple scenarios.
  - maxlin 2y ago
    A train can also run entirely automated but it is as valid a competitor to FSD as anything you have mentioned because FSD is general and works like a human. Video to inputs
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      Trains most certainly do not run automated, not on any long distance route anyway (there are some city trains/trams that do). And again, I'm comparing results. Waymo works autonomously quite well, even though geolocked to a city. Its going to be far easier for Waymo to take their existing mastery of traffic and extend that to less well mapped areas than it is going to be for Tesla to take their lack of mastery of any aspect of self driving tech and extend it to actually working. What exactly do you think geolocking does to simplify the problem of self-driving so much?
      - 2y ago

make_it_sure 2y ago

you're so wrong. do more research. Driving on a geo-fenced area is much much simple than what Tesla is trying. Eventually they can do that as well without problems if they can't generalise.

imtringued 2y ago
You do realise that waymo doesn't have drivers in their cars anymore? How about you do research on Tesla's competitors? Having a driver intervene is several orders of magnitude less advanced. Easily more than a decade away from the goal of self driving. You can build a geofenced area that spans every single road in the USA so the fact that something is geofenced tells you absolutely nothing.
tsimionescu 2y ago
Sure, but "we're trying something harder" doesn't mean anything. Waymo is succeeding at a well defined, useful form of driverless tech. They will probably be able to extend this, maybe slowly, to more and more cities. Tesla is failing at everything they're promising, and not delivering anything useful along the way (FSD as it exists today is more dangerous and more demanding than regular driving).
- maxlin 2y ago
  You're comparing a warehouse to a train even talking about Waymo. FSD has no limit. Recently it has been tested around in Europe and Asia, and the existing tech basically "just works" because sensorily and thought-wise it's made to function like the common meatbag between the seat and the wheel, just better. No, making the skyscraper 100 meters higher isn't going to make the train less relevant even though the tracks aren't all built yet.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    Again, FSD is just not doing anything that interesting. It only handles the easy scenarios, and punts to a driver for everything else, at a moment's notice. And it still constantly fails, per everyone who tries it, in even very simple situations. Look at what this article author found: that's just not something that happens with Waymo or Mercedes.
    - maxlin 2y ago
      You're pretty much exactly 180 degrees in the wrong in that one. Due to the deep NN-based approach, FSD can react to the minutest of changes like seeing ahead of the car in front, or even hand signals by pedestrians to decide how to drive. Again, even mentioning Waymo here proves you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Might as well compare FSD to trains, trains also "steer themselves" lol
      - tsimionescu 2y ago
        The hardest parts of self driving are related to interacting with others on the road - other cars, pedestrians, cyclists, animals, debris etc. Waymo has mostly solved these problems, in a real environment, with only some simple limitations in top speed (and a major limitation for climate - they don't work in heavy rain, fog, snow, etc). Sure, the environment is fully mapped out, so it's not easy to scale their solution. But they've solved an extremely difficult problem extremely well, with some well defined constraints. FSD has no defined constraints, sure. But it is FAR from solving the problems that Waymo has solved, and far from solving the problems that the CEO has promised to solve. If you hacked a Tesla to run with FSD without a driver in the car and let it roam in real traffic, even in Phoenix, it will crash within the first 100km. It's very, very far from being able to safely work without human intervention. And NNs are inherently very noisy, so they are not a promising approach for a safety critical system. Combining that with pure camera vision, which is very limited even in animals that have literally had billions of years of training, is a fool's errand. FSD as it exists right now does not work, and will never work. Time will show this: Tesla will either give FSD up, or will switch to camera+LIDAR.

maxlin 2y ago

"near the bottom of the pack" Are you _trying_ to make people not take you seriously? No one has the kind of tech Tesla unveiled back at Autonomy day, which is still state of the art technology wise. 100w for that much NN compute was a genius move to manage to get the talent in to build and to get early. Now that they've had more time to develop the tech, FSD is looking better than ever and in a few years Tesla will be licensing this around for a pretty penny. Eventually governments might even mandate it considering the comparative danger of human drivers.

tsimionescu 2y ago
No, I'm looking at actual results, not the tech stack. They are the only company that is only attempting Level 2, all the others are targeting or have achieved Level 3, or above. And Tesla isn't even doing Level 2 well, from the limited data that we have (since they of course refuse to release more). Look at any video about FSD on the internet and you'll see very frequent, inexplicable errors, in common simple scenarios.
- maxlin 2y ago
  A train can also run entirely automated but it is as valid a competitor to FSD as anything you have mentioned because FSD is general and works like a human. Video to inputs
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    Trains most certainly do not run automated, not on any long distance route anyway (there are some city trains/trams that do). And again, I'm comparing results. Waymo works autonomously quite well, even though geolocked to a city. Its going to be far easier for Waymo to take their existing mastery of traffic and extend that to less well mapped areas than it is going to be for Tesla to take their lack of mastery of any aspect of self driving tech and extend it to actually working. What exactly do you think geolocking does to simplify the problem of self-driving so much?
    - 2y ago