4 ms·

Why? It is capable of full self driving. That has been proven numerous times. It is however not capable to do this all time. I ask again, give a better name tha

Why? It is capable of full self driving. That has been proven numerous times. It is however not capable to do this all time. I ask again, give a better name that describes the function FSD currently offers. It is most certainly not a lane assist.

cwillu 2y ago
If I'm on a road trip with somebody, and they're driving, I expect to be able to sleep in the passenger seat. “Full” implies that level of competence, which includes knowing its own limitations and therefore when to pull over. I can think of half a dozen terms off the top of my head that would better describe what its doing, but they aren't quite as punchy, and critically, they won't give the impression that the car is capable of functioning without oversight. Being able to obliquely claim-without-claiming is very much the point of the current terminology. * trip control * trip assist * co-pilot * auto steer and throttle * partial self-driving (i.e., what it's actually doing!) * hands-free steering
- razemio 2y ago
  Why does full mean to you never to interact with the car. This would mean L5 driving. They never claimed that. Even the mercedes system which is L4 is only working under certain conditions. All the names you have given suggest, that it is not capable of managing a complete trip but it is. If you do not need to do anything for 95% (often 100%) of the trip, which is true for most FSD drives, this would not qualify as FSD for you? Then we can end this discussion and just have different opinions.
  - cwillu 2y ago
    Correct. And indeed, L5 is called “Level 5: Full driving automation”. The only reason the word “full” is even in there is because of previous abuses of the notion of “self-driving” cars that couldn't. “Full-no-we-really-mean-it-this-time self-driving”
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      "Full self driving beta (supervised)" always felt to me like report_draft2_(final)--revised.docx
stavros 2y ago
My 1990 Fiat is also capable of full self driving for short periods of time, if I put a rock on the gas pedal. If "full" doesn't mean "completely autonomous", what would you call a system that can drive a car in exactly all the circumstances a human can?
- razemio 2y ago
  The name does not matter. In the terms it has to say L5. Joking aside... 95% of the drives are with 1 or no manual disengagement. The disengagement does not have to be critical. I would always disengage to park because I am faster. Is this not enough to call something FSD? https://teslafsdtracker.com/ https://teslafsdtracker.com/
kibibu 2y ago
> I ask again, give a better name that describes the function FSD currently offers "Mostly Self-Driving"
- razemio 2y ago
  Haha :). I would have liked this name.
  - kibibu 2y ago
    You could go with "Full Sorta Driving" or "Full Somewhat Driving" and you don't even have to change the initialism.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  "It mostly self drives.... mostly" - Elon Musk as Newt from Aliens

cwillu 2y ago

If I'm on a road trip with somebody, and they're driving, I expect to be able to sleep in the passenger seat. “Full” implies that level of competence, which includes knowing its own limitations and therefore when to pull over. I can think of half a dozen terms off the top of my head that would better describe what its doing, but they aren't quite as punchy, and critically, they won't give the impression that the car is capable of functioning without oversight. Being able to obliquely claim-without-claiming is very much the point of the current terminology. * trip control * trip assist * co-pilot * auto steer and throttle * partial self-driving (i.e., what it's actually doing!) * hands-free steering

razemio 2y ago
Why does full mean to you never to interact with the car. This would mean L5 driving. They never claimed that. Even the mercedes system which is L4 is only working under certain conditions. All the names you have given suggest, that it is not capable of managing a complete trip but it is. If you do not need to do anything for 95% (often 100%) of the trip, which is true for most FSD drives, this would not qualify as FSD for you? Then we can end this discussion and just have different opinions.
- cwillu 2y ago
  Correct. And indeed, L5 is called “Level 5: Full driving automation”. The only reason the word “full” is even in there is because of previous abuses of the notion of “self-driving” cars that couldn't. “Full-no-we-really-mean-it-this-time self-driving”
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    "Full self driving beta (supervised)" always felt to me like report_draft2_(final)--revised.docx

stavros 2y ago

My 1990 Fiat is also capable of full self driving for short periods of time, if I put a rock on the gas pedal. If "full" doesn't mean "completely autonomous", what would you call a system that can drive a car in exactly all the circumstances a human can?

razemio 2y ago
The name does not matter. In the terms it has to say L5. Joking aside... 95% of the drives are with 1 or no manual disengagement. The disengagement does not have to be critical. I would always disengage to park because I am faster. Is this not enough to call something FSD? https://teslafsdtracker.com/ https://teslafsdtracker.com/

kibibu 2y ago

> I ask again, give a better name that describes the function FSD currently offers "Mostly Self-Driving"

razemio 2y ago
Haha :). I would have liked this name.
- kibibu 2y ago
  You could go with "Full Sorta Driving" or "Full Somewhat Driving" and you don't even have to change the initialism.
ModernMech 2y ago
"It mostly self drives.... mostly" - Elon Musk as Newt from Aliens