It's a Wittgenstein joke. Look at your profile picture.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
FSD may require a hardware upgrade...
- Thread starter boonedocks
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model S
It's a Wittgenstein joke. Look at your profile picture.
You guys are funny.
Auto headlights and auto wipers, work great here.
AP1 works great on divided highways. It works pretty well on undivided highways. The +5mph buffer is utter bullcrap.
I'm fairly confident AP2 will never be FSD in it's current state.
And lastly, lots of talk about nueral networks and learning and yadda yadda yadda. But we don't know what Tesla is actually doing, so all of that seems like speculation. I strongly doubt there's any learning going on real-time in the car, everything is trasmitted back to the mothership, trained there, tested there by humans, and a new set of parameters is beamed back to the car. Sure it's "learning", but I feel it's one more thing Elon sold that is snake oil.
Auto headlights and auto wipers, work great here.
AP1 works great on divided highways. It works pretty well on undivided highways. The +5mph buffer is utter bullcrap.
I'm fairly confident AP2 will never be FSD in it's current state.
And lastly, lots of talk about nueral networks and learning and yadda yadda yadda. But we don't know what Tesla is actually doing, so all of that seems like speculation. I strongly doubt there's any learning going on real-time in the car, everything is trasmitted back to the mothership, trained there, tested there by humans, and a new set of parameters is beamed back to the car. Sure it's "learning", but I feel it's one more thing Elon sold that is snake oil.
I believe they did promise L5... at least I recall seeing it and laughing.
There's also a fine line between L4 and L5, but L4 should work "even if a human driver does not respond appropriately to a request to intervene", so while a person should be there, he could nap
<-- https://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdfYes, that we are in a virtual reality in which Musk believes in can influence any desired outcome by stating intent.
When I consider why he says what he says, this is the possibility I return to.
I'll be happy to get solid level 3 and limited level 4, and I'll take whatever $1000 coupon they give toward the purchase of another Tesla after all the lawyers collect the class action lawsuit money for "FSD." There is absolutely no way this sensor set does FSD, and I never expected it to. The NVIDIA computing cluster is certainly deficient, inadequate, and just the wrong architecture for this application. We don't need GPUs on steroids, but rather a whole ton of GP cores. That's why Tesla has already acknowledged that they are doing their own SoC. The lawsuit will cost a lot less then swapping hardware, and if Tesla is still alive in five years, it will be a Model 3/Y company, and Model S/X FSD claims will be a minor nuisance.
By the way, in no way do I mean this as negative to Tesla; this will be an amazing accomplishment and that's why I bought a Model S and "FSD." I view it as crowdsourcing innovation.
There is absolutely no way this sensor set does FSD, and I never expected it to. The NVIDIA computing cluster is certainly deficient, inadequate, and just the wrong architecture for this application. We don't need GPUs on steroids, but rather a whole ton of GP cores. That's why Tesla has already acknowledged that they are doing their own SoC. The lawsuit will cost a lot less then swapping hardware, and if Tesla is still alive in five years, it will be a Model 3/Y company, and Model S/X FSD claims will be a minor nuisance.By the way, in no way do I mean this as negative to Tesla; this will be an amazing accomplishment and that's why I bought a Model S and "FSD." I view it as crowdsourcing innovation.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Here's the actual text:
"Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval. Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year."
Order a Tesla Model S | Tesla
I bolded the main part. It is not only contingent on regulatory approval but also "extensive software validation". That gives Tesla pretty big latitude for an out, as it's not going to be easy to tell if a feature is missing due to software validation issues or due to hardware. AP1 didn't have such an out (they just promised certain features), and that is why that disclaimer stood out to me when I first read it.
What is more likely to happen is they will deliver the feature (or something very close), but it perhaps will not be as polished as something qualifying for level 5 (by government standards), so that gives them an out based on the disclaimer, even if the feature may be possible with more processing power.
Of course, this is very early speculation about a hypothetical. I'm sure Tesla's goal and desire is to deliver the features with the given hardware.
Last edited:
Wouldn't Tesla's car sharing network, also promised with the current FSD package be considered Level 5?
Nice try, but no judge or jury will see it that way. There are too many outlandish statements by Tesla, Elon, their sales people, their own videos that would leave any reasonable person to expect FSD. Consumer protection laws are very strong in the USA and especially CA. You can't take money for something and not provide it, no matter what the "fine print" says. Ever sign one of those limited release of liability waivers? Yeah, those don't work either.
So much hassle could be avoided by Tesla if they just didn't sell these options before they were anywhere near ready, and then charge current owners a penalty for not buying ahead of time.
Buy a car today? Pay $8K for FSD, but who knows when it will work. Don't want to pay before it works? That will be $10K once it's working.
Buy a car in the future when FSD is working? That will be $8K, $25% less than the customer who has owned a car for a long time.
Charging your first customers a premium for something that they buy at risk is a weird business practice. DON'T TAKE MONEY FOR IT UNTIL IT EXISTS. You can advertise it's coming as a pay for update, buy why in the hell do they make you pre-pay for it? Just causes legal and customer satisfaction hassles.
Buy a car today? Pay $8K for FSD, but who knows when it will work. Don't want to pay before it works? That will be $10K once it's working.
Buy a car in the future when FSD is working? That will be $8K, $25% less than the customer who has owned a car for a long time.
Charging your first customers a premium for something that they buy at risk is a weird business practice. DON'T TAKE MONEY FOR IT UNTIL IT EXISTS. You can advertise it's coming as a pay for update, buy why in the hell do they make you pre-pay for it? Just causes legal and customer satisfaction hassles.
Even innocent misrepresentations are covered in Illinois' consumer fraud act. No intent to defraud is necessary. But I agree with @stopcrazypp that delivering features but ultimately failing on FSD due to software limitations is an easy out. All I know is we have to wait until we get more information.
lunitiks
Cool James & Black Teacher
Extremely important observation! The term "Self driving" is actually treated in SAEs paper outlining the "Level"-system, concluding that it is vague/ambiguous, or not fitting.
CEO did, in his verbal statements in the AP2-reveal press conference, state clearly and with conviction that the HW is indeed capable of "LEVEL 5" autonomy. Curiously, the YouTube-vid of his remarks quickly disappeared from googleinstafacebooksnap.
Luckily (for us), it's now available again
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The core issue is government approval. Let's say Tesla delivers some sort of self driving (where it technically can do all the features promised), but it does not qualify as legal "level 5" by some government standard (which will vary by jurisdiction). So in some jurisdictions, the car will be allowed to use unattended as car sharing and some areas the car will not be allowed to be used as car sharing due to how strict the law is. And say for example a hardware upgrade will allow the car to be legal "level 5" in all areas. That is the case that the disclaimer gives Tesla an out for.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
If it's been pointed out in this multi-page thread already, my apologies, but it's my understanding that FSD (Lvl 5) only requires that it be comparable/equal to a human driver, not better.
disagree
hos epi to polu
No, tesla promised at least twice as good as the human driver when it comes to safety. Look at the FSD section on Teslamotors.com
Also I think sorka (maybe someone else?) posted a screenshot a few pages back.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying Tesla will completely scott-free, just that it will not be anywhere close to the level of a full car buyback. IANAL, but there is also a significant difference between a false advertising claim and a breach of contract claim.
If they, for example, deliver the specific promised features: able to drive short/long trips with no action by the driver, able to connect to superchargers with automatic charge connection, auto navigate, park seek mode, phone summon. Then they should be safe from a breach of contract, even if the features are somewhat unpolished (a criticism that is seen put on AP1).
You can still claim false advertising from them hyping up the features too much in advertising and statements. However, I don't believe a false advertising claim can lead to a full buyback, usually it seems to be a FTC fine and a small monetary amount to the consumer to compensate.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
Yeah, but that's statistically safer because humans can get distracted. The wording below indicates that the system performs tasks equal to a human, not better.
- Level 5 – Full Automation: The full-time performance by an Automated Driving System of all aspects of the dynamic driving task under all roadway and environmental conditions that can be managed by a human driver
Current SAE News Releases
I disagree, but we'd be arguing semantics. IMO you're reading too much into what is written in one sentence.
It says that it can manage all tasks a human can do, it doesn't say that it can only manage all tasks that a human can do (which is what you stated above).
The minimal for FSD approval is L5 = human. But the wording does not indicate that the system performs tasks equal to a human.
There are a lot of bright FSD "owners" posting in this thread. I am still amazed so many bright people plunked down the $3000 for FSD. Saving $1000 is always nice but didn't you all believe the likelihood of FSD in the foreseeable future was about as likely as Elon dying on Mars?
Similar threads
