5 ms·

At least there's an actual, verifiable end result for Toyota. I don't see that for Schrödinger's FSD.

by LightBug1 1y ago

recursive 1y ago
It's verifiable in the sense that you can check whether they followed through, and they did not? How is that better?
- LightBug1 1y ago
  At some point, either Toyota will have delivered or not. Whereas Tesla have been saying FSD is amazing and breakthrough technology for years now and yet and, as a novelty, it is, kind of. Still needs human intervention. And I wouldn't trust my family with it at all. ymmv So, we're back at the heart of the basic criticism it's had for years. They've been selling this dud for years, and it's still not feature ready. Schrödinger.
  - recursive 1y ago
    That point can always be in the future.
    - LightBug1 1y ago
      Yes, the issue is that Tesla and its fanboys have said that point is now, or yesterday. Which is not the case.
sixQuarks 1y ago
[flagged]
- slaw 1y ago
  I saw Waymo without driver behind the wheel, but never Tesla.
  - simondotau 1y ago
    Waymo had supervisors in their cars during the early months of their roll-out too.
BurningFrog 1y ago
All recent model Teslas can use FSD now, at least in the US. It's a $100/month subscription.
- wewtyflakes 1y ago
  Tesla calls it "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)" now, no? Seems odd to call it "full" self-driving if it has to be supervised.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - simondotau 1y ago
    I agree it's a bad choice of name, though I think the controversy is somewhat overstated. In Tesla's view, "full" is an antonym to "limited", where Autopilot designed to work on a limited class of roads. In this way, "full" was intended to describe the system's intended ability to perform the full task of piloting a vehicle, not that the system has achieved some unspoken threshold of engineering perfection. In its current state, FSD can perform complete drives without intervention almost every time. (Yes, "almost" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. But the same is true of some human drivers who hold driver licenses.) And to be fair, it's important to disambiguate technical and regulatory achievements. It is "supervised" because "unsupervised" would necessarily mean Tesla's software is the legally licensed driver of someone else's privately owned vehicle, which is a situation regulators are nowhere near contemplating. And it would require a vastly different insurance product to what is currently sold by insurers.
    - breve 1y ago
      > In this way, "full" was intended to describe the system's intended ability to perform the full task of piloting a vehicle, not that the system has achieved some unspoken threshold of engineering perfection. No. Tesla simply lied. Tesla very specifically claimed it would outperform human drivers. In 2016 Tesla claimed every Tesla car being produced had "the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver": https://web.archive.org/web/20161020091022/https://tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-self-driving-hardware https://web.archive.org/web/20161020091022/https://tesla.com... Wasn't true then, still isn't true now.
testing22321 1y ago
You’ve never seen a self driving waymo, and extrapolated that to trucks and other commercial uses that will no longer need drivers?
- bobthepanda 1y ago
  i think they are making a point about Tesla's FSD specifically and not about autonomous vehicles. We have been trying to automate trucks for one or two decades but I'm not exactly willing to bet on it getting beyond the testing phase in a specific calendar year.
- filloooo 1y ago
  All of these need human intervention as failsafe, you just don't see them sitting in the car. A good example is those Chinese unmanned delivery vans, that's real world results of current AI driving.

At least there's an actual, verifiable end result for Toyota. I don't see that for Schrödinger's FSD.

recursive 1y ago

It's verifiable in the sense that you can check whether they followed through, and they did not? How is that better?

LightBug1 1y ago
At some point, either Toyota will have delivered or not. Whereas Tesla have been saying FSD is amazing and breakthrough technology for years now and yet and, as a novelty, it is, kind of. Still needs human intervention. And I wouldn't trust my family with it at all. ymmv So, we're back at the heart of the basic criticism it's had for years. They've been selling this dud for years, and it's still not feature ready. Schrödinger.
- recursive 1y ago
  That point can always be in the future.
  - LightBug1 1y ago
    Yes, the issue is that Tesla and its fanboys have said that point is now, or yesterday. Which is not the case.

sixQuarks 1y ago

[flagged]

slaw 1y ago
I saw Waymo without driver behind the wheel, but never Tesla.
- simondotau 1y ago
  Waymo had supervisors in their cars during the early months of their roll-out too.

BurningFrog 1y ago

All recent model Teslas can use FSD now, at least in the US. It's a $100/month subscription.

wewtyflakes 1y ago
Tesla calls it "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)" now, no? Seems odd to call it "full" self-driving if it has to be supervised.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- simondotau 1y ago
  I agree it's a bad choice of name, though I think the controversy is somewhat overstated. In Tesla's view, "full" is an antonym to "limited", where Autopilot designed to work on a limited class of roads. In this way, "full" was intended to describe the system's intended ability to perform the full task of piloting a vehicle, not that the system has achieved some unspoken threshold of engineering perfection. In its current state, FSD can perform complete drives without intervention almost every time. (Yes, "almost" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. But the same is true of some human drivers who hold driver licenses.) And to be fair, it's important to disambiguate technical and regulatory achievements. It is "supervised" because "unsupervised" would necessarily mean Tesla's software is the legally licensed driver of someone else's privately owned vehicle, which is a situation regulators are nowhere near contemplating. And it would require a vastly different insurance product to what is currently sold by insurers.
  - breve 1y ago
    > In this way, "full" was intended to describe the system's intended ability to perform the full task of piloting a vehicle, not that the system has achieved some unspoken threshold of engineering perfection. No. Tesla simply lied. Tesla very specifically claimed it would outperform human drivers. In 2016 Tesla claimed every Tesla car being produced had "the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver": https://web.archive.org/web/20161020091022/https://tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-self-driving-hardware https://web.archive.org/web/20161020091022/https://tesla.com... Wasn't true then, still isn't true now.

testing22321 1y ago

You’ve never seen a self driving waymo, and extrapolated that to trucks and other commercial uses that will no longer need drivers?

bobthepanda 1y ago
i think they are making a point about Tesla's FSD specifically and not about autonomous vehicles. We have been trying to automate trucks for one or two decades but I'm not exactly willing to bet on it getting beyond the testing phase in a specific calendar year.
filloooo 1y ago
All of these need human intervention as failsafe, you just don't see them sitting in the car. A good example is those Chinese unmanned delivery vans, that's real world results of current AI driving.