Mahmood Hikmet who made that video is on the committee for J3016. I think you should watch it, because you do not understand what the DDT.
If you can't spend 4 minutes watching it, but spend hours here getting your ass kicked, that's on you.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
Tesla's Supercharger Team was recently laid off. We discuss what this means for the company on today's TMC Podcast streaming live at 1PM PDT. You can watch on X or on YouTube where you can participate in the live chat.
FSD v12.x (end to end AI)
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
-
- Tags
- #fixphantombraking autopilot chill is not chill elon is an ass fix fsd extreme late deceleration fsd does not commit to go fsd does not maintain proper speed fsd hard and late braking fsd jerky driving fsd late deceleration fsd stops too early too quickly fsd stops too far behind line fsd tailgating in city streets
If you can't spend 4 minutes watching it, but spend hours here getting your ass kicked, that's on you.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Right. Which tells us there ARE parts of the DDT the system can't perform. And the human must perform them. The human must perform these even on 0 intervention drives.
So does the column on the right listing which tasks an L2 system CAN perform (lateral and longitudinal vehicle control subtasks)
ALSO in that picture?
YOUR picture from J3016 said:
If the system can do the entire DDT then it is not level 2
It's somewhere 3-5, depending on other factors in the system.
powertoold
Active Member
Once again, the whole idea of design intent and expectations of driver roles flew over your head again. With L3+, the system is EXPECTED and DESIGNED to perform the entire DDT, this does not confer anything about its performance wrt the DDT task and subtasks.
Would you mind answering my simple question?
If the L2 did NOT perform the entire DDT, please point to which DDT tasks it did not perform for that particular intervention-free trip, despite always expecting a driver there to supervise
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
"performance" does not seem to mean what you think it means.
Your question has been answered repeatedly, by multiple people, including, hilariously, by you every time you repost that graphic from J3016 showing you how wrong you are.
You just don't understand the answer.
Last edited:
powertoold
Active Member
Yes, so which particular DDT tasks or subtasks did the human perform in the case the L2 driving automation system is able to drive the entire trip without intervention or take over by the constantly supervising human driver?
It seems like an easy question that you're stubbornly avoiding.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Even if the human did need to perform a task that would be due to a failure in the system. The failure is reported back to Tesla because the design intent of the system is to perform the entire DDT. How else could it achieve the goal of many times safer than a human when unsupervised? I don’t believe there are two different versions of V12 with different design intents.
It doesn’t become L2 just because you’ve sold a buggy L5 system to customers.
zoomer0056
Active Member
My head is spinning. I can't even figure out what the points or arguments are.
Hmmmm.... let's try something different. What is the end goal of this debate? Powertoold, what is your goal? Is it that Telsa cars are L4? Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say Tesla is L4. What does that do for you? On the flip side, those who claim Tesla is L2, let's say it's L2 - what does that do for you?
I'm curious about what the end result is to this debate?
I'm curious about what the end result is to this debate?
The whole point was that if you drop a Tesla and a Waymo at some random spot in the country, that isn't pre-HD mapped by Waymo, that the Tesla could "drive" itself around the block and that the Waymo couldn't, or wouldn't.
Since people claim the Tesla can't "drive" around the block, because of legal definitions of "drive", I'll say that it can ambulate around the block. And that the Waymo couldn't, or wouldn't, ambulate around the block.
Last edited:
Iain
Member
I for one don’t give a hoot what Waymo can or can’t do. I do care what Teslas can or can’t do.
Again... Nobody said it could safely "drive" around the block on it's own. (Being safe is not a requirement of driving, as can be seen by just watching the drivers in almost any area for a few minutes.)
Last edited:
That is a nonsensical point to make because a Tesla cannot drive by itself anywhere on this planet. I know this because Tesla says so.
But it absolutely can move itself around without a driver, as has been proven by multiple videos showing it actually doing it. (People in the back seat, stuffed animals in the driver's seat, etc.) But apparently that isn't "driving", so we have to use a different word.
It is a L2 ADAS system that people have misused to their own peril and in many cases has led their death.But it absolutely can move itself around without a driver, as has been proven by multiple videos showing it actually doing it. (People in the back seat, stuffed animals in the driver's seat, etc.) But apparently that isn't "driving", so we have to use a different word.
Where is the confirmed list of deaths while using FSDb? (Not while using AP or NoA.) I haven't seen anything, and probably certainly not many, if any. (There have been a lot of people claim it, but most of those appear to be false claims.)
zoomer0056
Active Member
Are we in Punxsutawney, am I Bill Murray in Groundhog day?
Yes I am stuck in Punxsutawney, because people has been saying Tesla will be robotaxis and autonomy is a solved problem every day since 2014. Yet people refuse to do their own research, don't understand the basics, and keep repeating Elon's fantasies like useful idiots.
Same trick for ten years. This pony is officially dead. Or probably not when I wake up.
This whole discussion is the result of Tesla's autonowashing. I don't blame the victims, but seriously guys... Look at the research.
verb. The practice of making unverified or misleading claims which misrepresent the appropriate level of human supervision required by a partially or semi-autonomous product, service or technology.
Autonowashing makes something appear to be more autonomous than it really is.
Autonowashing
[ ah-ton-uh-wash-ing ]
verb. The practice of making unverified or misleading claims which misrepresent the appropriate level of human supervision required by a partially or semi-autonomous product, service or technology.
Autonowashing makes something appear to be more autonomous than it really is.
Is this where we pretend that any proof provided to you will satisfy you? When you don’t even accept Tesla telling you on their own website that FDSb is not autonomous as proof.
Similar threads
