3 ms·

They are clearly the front runner in L2+ ADAS (at least outside of China) and are one of the first teams to deploy an e2e model for robotics at scale.

orwin 1y ago
'robotics at scale' what do you mean? Deployment of fully automated factories lanes at scale? Because unless they did that in the early 2010s, they are a bit late, no?
- tuckerman 1y ago
  Do you have a good example of someone doing that with an e2e model? (not that I think most factory robots should be using e2e models, a more traditional sense-plan-act system usually makes more sense in that domain) We were working on e2e models for manipulation and motion for a long time at Google X and I was at Wayve working on e2e models for driving. From a science perspective, Tesla's FSD is very impressive accomplishment. Edit: Sorry I think I now understand your comment. I mean FSD, not their factory robots. I don't know anything about Tesla's factories.
gamblor956 1y ago
They are clearly the front runner in L2+ ADAS No, not clear at all actually. Every day I see Teslas swerving dangerously while their "drivers" are using their phones instead of driving the car. When I used to commute past the SpaceX HQ in Hawthorne, I'd see at least one Tesla accident a day.
- tuckerman 1y ago
  I'm speaking from a research/capabilities perspective but you can also review https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport which seems to refute your anecdote to some extent.
  - FireBeyond 1y ago
    It really doesn't. A few things you need to know about that report: 1. It compares "all drivers in all vehicles on all road conditions in all weather conditions" versus "the subset of miles driven in FSD conditions, where neither weather nor road conditions turn FSD off because it can't be sufficiently functional". 2. If your airbags don't deploy, Tesla doesn't consider it an accident for the purposes of that report (modern safety systems don't blindly deploy airbags, they evaluate g-forces, speeds, angles of impact, etc., so you can hit something at 25mph and the vehicle decides your seatbelts are sufficient. Tesla decides "that's not a reportable collision"). Know when else your airbags might not deploy? Very serious accidents, when hardware or controllers are damaged. 3. Speaking of which, fatalities are not included in that report. "It was a collision where someone died, but doesn't merit inclusion in a safety report" is a weird position to take.
    - tuckerman 1y ago
      I'm not saying FSD is a paragon of safety or even a good product. I just think, based on the numbers shared, that an anecdote of Teslas dangerously careening around might just be an anecdote.
      - gamblor956 1y ago
        No, as the parent points out: Tesla's "safety report" deliberately excludes most accidents, including fatalities, and thus is about as trustworthy as a charlatan.

orwin 1y ago

'robotics at scale' what do you mean? Deployment of fully automated factories lanes at scale? Because unless they did that in the early 2010s, they are a bit late, no?

tuckerman 1y ago
Do you have a good example of someone doing that with an e2e model? (not that I think most factory robots should be using e2e models, a more traditional sense-plan-act system usually makes more sense in that domain) We were working on e2e models for manipulation and motion for a long time at Google X and I was at Wayve working on e2e models for driving. From a science perspective, Tesla's FSD is very impressive accomplishment. Edit: Sorry I think I now understand your comment. I mean FSD, not their factory robots. I don't know anything about Tesla's factories.

gamblor956 1y ago

They are clearly the front runner in L2+ ADAS No, not clear at all actually. Every day I see Teslas swerving dangerously while their "drivers" are using their phones instead of driving the car. When I used to commute past the SpaceX HQ in Hawthorne, I'd see at least one Tesla accident a day.

tuckerman 1y ago
I'm speaking from a research/capabilities perspective but you can also review https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport which seems to refute your anecdote to some extent.
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  It really doesn't. A few things you need to know about that report: 1. It compares "all drivers in all vehicles on all road conditions in all weather conditions" versus "the subset of miles driven in FSD conditions, where neither weather nor road conditions turn FSD off because it can't be sufficiently functional". 2. If your airbags don't deploy, Tesla doesn't consider it an accident for the purposes of that report (modern safety systems don't blindly deploy airbags, they evaluate g-forces, speeds, angles of impact, etc., so you can hit something at 25mph and the vehicle decides your seatbelts are sufficient. Tesla decides "that's not a reportable collision"). Know when else your airbags might not deploy? Very serious accidents, when hardware or controllers are damaged. 3. Speaking of which, fatalities are not included in that report. "It was a collision where someone died, but doesn't merit inclusion in a safety report" is a weird position to take.
  - tuckerman 1y ago
    I'm not saying FSD is a paragon of safety or even a good product. I just think, based on the numbers shared, that an anecdote of Teslas dangerously careening around might just be an anecdote.
    - gamblor956 1y ago
      No, as the parent points out: Tesla's "safety report" deliberately excludes most accidents, including fatalities, and thus is about as trustworthy as a charlatan.