6 ms·

As an anecdotal data point, I picked up a '24 Model 3 precisely for the self-driving capabilities. The difference between a Tesla running hardware/software HW3/

by cowlby 1y ago

As an anecdotal data point, I picked up a '24 Model 3 precisely for the self-driving capabilities. The difference between a Tesla running hardware/software HW3/v11 vs HW4/v12 was night and day. Literally felt like the difference between flying a helicopter (actively trying to kill u lol) and an airplane. I honestly did not get the hype until this specific HW4/v12 combination which didn't exist until last summer or so. It's the first time FSD felt like a safety feature for just $99 a month.

tw04 1y ago
>I honestly did not get the hype until this specific HW4/v12 combination which didn't exist until last summer or so. It's the first time FSD felt like a safety feature for just $99 a month. That's exactly the problem. It's great right until it isn't, at which point it's likely to make a decision that will kill you or someone else if you aren't lucky. (most) Humans are REALLY good at paying attention to something that will actively kill them at any moment - you don't see a lot of people running a chainsaw while sending a text to their friend about drinks later in the day. Humans are REALLY bad at stopping something they trust (IMO foolishly), with less than a half a second of notice, from killing them or someone else. It is completely natural to get lulled into a sense of security when something mostly works exactly as you'd expect. Meanwhile Tesla wants to act as if it's the driver's fault anytime there's a crash without acknowledging they are actively perpetuating the myth of: "this thing drives itself". It's literally called "Full Self Driving" and Telsa expects the average person to look at that name and think: you need to be vigilant anytime you turn this on because it is a beta feature that may drive into oncoming traffic at any moment.
- cowlby 1y ago
  Agreed, but you can't not pay attention with the new Vision Attention Monitoring. Not sure if it's HW4/v12 specific but it watches your eyesight specifically. So for example, if I look at the screen, my phone, or start day-dreaming for even a few seconds, it'll beep and quickly strike me out from using FSD. "FSD (supervised)" is how it shows up in the UI too at least giving some expectation of it not being autonomous. So in practice, I'm picturing the right driving inputs and watching what it's doing.
  - thejazzman 1y ago
    Put on a hat or sunglasses and it falls back to periodic steering wheel nags I haven't tested it but I assume the same is true if you put tape over the camera
    - zaptrem 1y ago
      Taping over the camera causes it to lock out (it can tell the difference between that and night time).
  - mhss 1y ago
    Quite frankly sounds super boring. I prefer driving than supervising. Only true unsupervised autonomous driving would be interesting for me (e.g Waymo).
    - SoftTalker 1y ago
      But doesn’t Waymo autonomous driving only work in certain areas with hyper accurate maps?
      - tw04 1y ago
        Correct, because that combined with about $30k in sensors is the only true safe way to do it today.
        fastball 1y ago
        > the only true safe way An unsubstantiated claim given that there are many, many safe human drivers who have neither LIDAR sensors nor hyper-accurate pre-mapping at their disposal.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        Quote the rest of the line please.
- Gareth321 1y ago
  > That's exactly the problem. It's great right until it isn't, at which point it's likely to make a decision that will kill you or someone else if you aren't lucky. This should be weighed against the fallibility of human drivers, surely? Our point of comparison is not "perfect", it's "human." Inasmuch, with millions of miles driven, FSD appears to be many times safer than humans: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tesla-Autopilot-and-FSD-are-now-6x-safer-than-human-drivers-who-turn-them-off-to-text-from-their-phones.955050.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tesla-Autopilot-and-FSD-are-no... Not perfect, and there will be crashes, but much better, and I think that's the yard stick we should be using, because no system will ever be perfect.
  - watwut 1y ago
    Tesla comes across safer when you compare the performance under completely different conditions and then shift blame on humans for not reacting in a second when Tesla suddenly disengage.
    - Gareth321 1y ago
      Tesla records all FSD accidents when it has been engaged 10 seconds prior to the crash. I don't think your claim is accurate but if you have a source I would be glad to read it.
  - enragedcacti 1y ago
    Those are numbers for Autopilot, not FSD. Autopilot is driving mostly highway miles which have much lower crash rates than the highway/city combined stat Tesla compares against. More importantly, those statistics describe the safety of a supervised system and can't be used to infer the safety of the system on it's own. Tesla refuses to disclose the industry standard "miles per disengagement" for FSD but crowdsourced data puts them at 456, pitiful compared to humans and other self-driving projects. [1] Also to note, FSD disengagements are probably common enough to still be on the left hand side of the "Valley of Degraded Supervision"[2], where mistakes are common enough that users stay viligant. As mi/de increases to 5,000 or 50,000, the quality of the supervision could degrade to the point that the supervised system is less safe than an unaided driver. [1] https://teslafsdtracker.com/Main https://teslafsdtracker.com/Main [2] https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman19_TestingSafetyCase_SAEWCX.pdf https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman19_TestingSaf...
CommenterPerson 1y ago
$99 per month?! For some half baked software? I need a car, not a parasite.
- wat10000 1y ago
  You can buy it outright if you prefer. Or you can just not buy it at all.
  - ghushn3 1y ago
    The latter option being the one that is the best possible one.
- fastball 1y ago
  At this point, Tesla's FSD is almost certainly more "baked" than the vast majority of software you've ever used. The amount of engineering and compute time that have gone into it are colossal. That said, something being excessively baked does not mean it is good.
  - jajko 1y ago
    Thats an irrelevant argument (and unless you work there directly on this just empty baseless words). The point is - it didnt deliver, and still doesnt. Its a securities fraud out in the open, but clearly from a guy who is above the threshold of applicable law
    - fastball 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - watwut 1y ago
        > It has been designed by brilliant engineers whose only goal is that it works for its intended purpose. Is this statement actually true? From what I heard, it was designed by highly overworked stressed engineers working in pretty bad workplace conditions. They work there, because there are not many other places to work at and doing similar work. And their primary goal was to produce as fast as possible. > It is very thoroughly tested. Is it?
beAbU 1y ago
> safety feature for just $99 a month Are you hearing yourself. How can a "safety feature" be a subscription? Next they'll charge you a microtransaction every time you fasten your seatbelt?
- hgomersall 1y ago
  Isn't that what Boeing did? We all know how that ended.
- cowlby 1y ago
  They either have to bake it into the cost of the car or offer it as an option. I appreciate they offer all three options: don't purchase $0, purchase outright for $8,000, or subscribe for $99/month.
LightBug1 1y ago
No chance in hell I'd go near that ... good luck.

by cowlby 1y ago

tw04 1y ago

>I honestly did not get the hype until this specific HW4/v12 combination which didn't exist until last summer or so. It's the first time FSD felt like a safety feature for just $99 a month. That's exactly the problem. It's great right until it isn't, at which point it's likely to make a decision that will kill you or someone else if you aren't lucky. (most) Humans are REALLY good at paying attention to something that will actively kill them at any moment - you don't see a lot of people running a chainsaw while sending a text to their friend about drinks later in the day. Humans are REALLY bad at stopping something they trust (IMO foolishly), with less than a half a second of notice, from killing them or someone else. It is completely natural to get lulled into a sense of security when something mostly works exactly as you'd expect. Meanwhile Tesla wants to act as if it's the driver's fault anytime there's a crash without acknowledging they are actively perpetuating the myth of: "this thing drives itself". It's literally called "Full Self Driving" and Telsa expects the average person to look at that name and think: you need to be vigilant anytime you turn this on because it is a beta feature that may drive into oncoming traffic at any moment.

cowlby 1y ago
Agreed, but you can't not pay attention with the new Vision Attention Monitoring. Not sure if it's HW4/v12 specific but it watches your eyesight specifically. So for example, if I look at the screen, my phone, or start day-dreaming for even a few seconds, it'll beep and quickly strike me out from using FSD. "FSD (supervised)" is how it shows up in the UI too at least giving some expectation of it not being autonomous. So in practice, I'm picturing the right driving inputs and watching what it's doing.
- thejazzman 1y ago
  Put on a hat or sunglasses and it falls back to periodic steering wheel nags I haven't tested it but I assume the same is true if you put tape over the camera
  - zaptrem 1y ago
    Taping over the camera causes it to lock out (it can tell the difference between that and night time).
- mhss 1y ago
  Quite frankly sounds super boring. I prefer driving than supervising. Only true unsupervised autonomous driving would be interesting for me (e.g Waymo).
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    But doesn’t Waymo autonomous driving only work in certain areas with hyper accurate maps?
    - tw04 1y ago
      Correct, because that combined with about $30k in sensors is the only true safe way to do it today.
      - fastball 1y ago
        > the only true safe way An unsubstantiated claim given that there are many, many safe human drivers who have neither LIDAR sensors nor hyper-accurate pre-mapping at their disposal.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        Quote the rest of the line please.
Gareth321 1y ago
> That's exactly the problem. It's great right until it isn't, at which point it's likely to make a decision that will kill you or someone else if you aren't lucky. This should be weighed against the fallibility of human drivers, surely? Our point of comparison is not "perfect", it's "human." Inasmuch, with millions of miles driven, FSD appears to be many times safer than humans: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tesla-Autopilot-and-FSD-are-now-6x-safer-than-human-drivers-who-turn-them-off-to-text-from-their-phones.955050.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tesla-Autopilot-and-FSD-are-no... Not perfect, and there will be crashes, but much better, and I think that's the yard stick we should be using, because no system will ever be perfect.
- watwut 1y ago
  Tesla comes across safer when you compare the performance under completely different conditions and then shift blame on humans for not reacting in a second when Tesla suddenly disengage.
  - Gareth321 1y ago
    Tesla records all FSD accidents when it has been engaged 10 seconds prior to the crash. I don't think your claim is accurate but if you have a source I would be glad to read it.
- enragedcacti 1y ago
  Those are numbers for Autopilot, not FSD. Autopilot is driving mostly highway miles which have much lower crash rates than the highway/city combined stat Tesla compares against. More importantly, those statistics describe the safety of a supervised system and can't be used to infer the safety of the system on it's own. Tesla refuses to disclose the industry standard "miles per disengagement" for FSD but crowdsourced data puts them at 456, pitiful compared to humans and other self-driving projects. [1] Also to note, FSD disengagements are probably common enough to still be on the left hand side of the "Valley of Degraded Supervision"[2], where mistakes are common enough that users stay viligant. As mi/de increases to 5,000 or 50,000, the quality of the supervision could degrade to the point that the supervised system is less safe than an unaided driver. [1] https://teslafsdtracker.com/Main https://teslafsdtracker.com/Main [2] https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman19_TestingSafetyCase_SAEWCX.pdf https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman19_TestingSaf...

CommenterPerson 1y ago

$99 per month?! For some half baked software? I need a car, not a parasite.

wat10000 1y ago
You can buy it outright if you prefer. Or you can just not buy it at all.
- ghushn3 1y ago
  The latter option being the one that is the best possible one.
fastball 1y ago
At this point, Tesla's FSD is almost certainly more "baked" than the vast majority of software you've ever used. The amount of engineering and compute time that have gone into it are colossal. That said, something being excessively baked does not mean it is good.
- jajko 1y ago
  Thats an irrelevant argument (and unless you work there directly on this just empty baseless words). The point is - it didnt deliver, and still doesnt. Its a securities fraud out in the open, but clearly from a guy who is above the threshold of applicable law
  - fastball 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - watwut 1y ago
      > It has been designed by brilliant engineers whose only goal is that it works for its intended purpose. Is this statement actually true? From what I heard, it was designed by highly overworked stressed engineers working in pretty bad workplace conditions. They work there, because there are not many other places to work at and doing similar work. And their primary goal was to produce as fast as possible. > It is very thoroughly tested. Is it?

beAbU 1y ago

> safety feature for just $99 a month Are you hearing yourself. How can a "safety feature" be a subscription? Next they'll charge you a microtransaction every time you fasten your seatbelt?

hgomersall 1y ago
Isn't that what Boeing did? We all know how that ended.
cowlby 1y ago
They either have to bake it into the cost of the car or offer it as an option. I appreciate they offer all three options: don't purchase $0, purchase outright for $8,000, or subscribe for $99/month.

LightBug1 1y ago

No chance in hell I'd go near that ... good luck.