3 ms·

Sorry but while I am a happy Waymo user, this is overblown and just incorrect. Waymo has datacenter oversight. (which, who cares, the product is great). Tesla

Sorry but while I am a happy Waymo user, this is overblown and just incorrect. Waymo has datacenter oversight. (which, who cares, the product is great). Tesla FSD 12 -> 13 was a massive jump that happened earlier this year. 14 is still rolling out. Testing out 13 this weekend, it drove on country roads, noticed a road closure, rerouted, did 7 miles on non divided highways, navigated a town and chose a parking space and parked in it with zero interruptions. It even backed out of the driveway to start the trip. I didn't like the parking job and reparked; other than that, no hands, no feet, fully autonomous. Unlike 12, I had no 'comments' on the driving choices - rotaries were navigated very nicely, road hazards were approached and dealt with safely and properly. It was genuinely good. Dislike Elon all you want, but Tesla FSD is improving rapidly, and to my experienced eyes adding 9s. Probably two or three more 9s to go, but it's not a maxed out technology.

energy123 1y ago
> It was genuinely good. You lack data to draw this conclusion. The most important factor is deaths per mile, which is sparse, so it requires aggregating data from many drivers before you have enough statistical power.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - energy123 1y ago
    Data is needed to know if it's safe. For self-driving software, safety is the #1 criteria for whether it's a good product.
    - ryandrake 1y ago
      "Trust me, bro, it really works" is these guys' slogan. It's like when you hear of a fad diet, and all the evidence for the diet's effectiveness is anecdotal "It totally worked for me!" testimony.
  - estearum 1y ago
    Where "good" is pretty much identical to having a specific rate of accidents over a specific set of conditions, then in fact data is absolutely necessary to determine that. Lol.
- vessenes 1y ago
  Qualitative reactions matter. I didn't say it was genuinely safe. I can say that it was smooth, reacted better than most adult drivers to the situations I witnessed, and was significantly better at those things than the prior version. Safety is sparse, but steering, acceleration, decision making happen at like 60hz, and I would say I can make a qualitative judgment on it.

energy123 1y ago

> It was genuinely good. You lack data to draw this conclusion. The most important factor is deaths per mile, which is sparse, so it requires aggregating data from many drivers before you have enough statistical power.

terminalshort 1y ago
[flagged]
- energy123 1y ago
  Data is needed to know if it's safe. For self-driving software, safety is the #1 criteria for whether it's a good product.
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    "Trust me, bro, it really works" is these guys' slogan. It's like when you hear of a fad diet, and all the evidence for the diet's effectiveness is anecdotal "It totally worked for me!" testimony.
- estearum 1y ago
  Where "good" is pretty much identical to having a specific rate of accidents over a specific set of conditions, then in fact data is absolutely necessary to determine that. Lol.
vessenes 1y ago
Qualitative reactions matter. I didn't say it was genuinely safe. I can say that it was smooth, reacted better than most adult drivers to the situations I witnessed, and was significantly better at those things than the prior version. Safety is sparse, but steering, acceleration, decision making happen at like 60hz, and I would say I can make a qualitative judgment on it.