In 8:39 - 8:42, there's a group (three people with a dog and stroller) crossing the street left to right.

Here's what the Tesla recognises on the screen:

  One person
  Nothing
  Motorcycle
  Nothing
  Motorcycle
  Nothing
  Car
  Nothing
  One person
  Two persons
  One person
  One person and a motorcycle
  One person
  Nothing
  Motorcycle
  One person
  One person and two motorcycles
  Two persons
  One person
  One person and a motorcycle
  Two persons
  One person

It seems to me you wouldn't really need public testing yet at this early stage of development. At a minimum, I would expect it to count the people correctly and get rid of the motorcycles, i.e. basic perception.

Is it critical to know whether it's a stroller or a motorcycle? It's an obstacle either way.

Absolutely, an essential part of driving is predicting how the state of the world will change in the future - and the behaviour of a motorcycle is vastly different from the behaviour of a stroller.

In this case it doesn't matter, because there's a car in front anyway.

I don't know how much the system can ignore or mislabel people and still drive safely, but right now it's not really safe and it's not necessary to have the car drive while improving object recognition.

Presumably strollers and motorcycles have very different behaviors to predict.

generally speaking the cloud of future position where a person or a bike can be is wildly different

That video has some really terrifying moments. Some of the decisions would warrant an alpha flag

My grandpa would warrant an alpha flag, too. But he still allowed to drive and his driving skills are not improving, at all.

What the alpha flag would change, exactly?

If your grandfather drove bad enough to pull two such stunts on a single drive he wouldn't have a car to drive anymore. So an alpha flag would at least indicate: "drives literally worse than rcMgD2BwE72F's grandfather" .

That's not true at all. You only lose you your license after being caught by police, several times.

Ah, but you can lose your car much quicker than that, if you make an error in driving.

Erratum: my grandpa drives worst than FSD with human oversight (like in all the video you can find on Youtube). I didn't meant FSD without oversight, which is not possible anyway. But are we discussing the current level of FSD as a Level 5 system? Don't think so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car#SAE_Classific...

Then he should hand in his license.

why is it so hard to understand that roads full of drivers equal to your mythical grandpa would be a really bad idea and people would be dying left and right?

>my grandpa drives worst than FSD with human oversight

Your grandpa is one person. Retesting 100 million drivers to find the bottom 10% is not exactly very feasible. For a model of FSD, all vehicles on the road share the exact same level of performance. We are talking about scale here.

It is like comparing me selling some vegetables from my garden to a neighbor and a company selling 100 million units of vegetables across a country. It makes zero sense to say "they should both have the same level of safety standards", since a listeria outbreak sickening thousands is far worse than a tainted cucumber poisoning one neighbor.

Tens of thousands of cars using dangerously poor driving level software is worse than any one individual driver that may have dangerously poor skills.

Many people would argue drivers should be regularly tested so that people like your grandpa can’t drive.

If his grandpa really drives this poorly he will lose his ability to drive well before it expires either directly from accidents, from losing his license after accidents, or from his insurance becoming too expensive. I'm always amazed at how badly die-hard FSD supporters think humans drive

Where aren't they? Over here driver's licences expire.

In the U.S. they expire but you're usually not retested unless you move states and sometimes not even then. You usually just go down to the state's motor vehicle office and confirm your info is correct, pay the renewal and they print out a new license

Yep, the extent to which people are allowed to renew their license in the U.S. is very nearly criminal (both in the cases of old age and in previous history of driving impaired or recklessly). It's one of the less talked about externalities of the States being a car-based culture. Here, driving is considered a right more than a privilege, whereas in most other first world countries (e.g. most of Europe) the opposite is true.

I agree that people skills change over time, which is why I, as a driver, am in favor that every driver should retake the driving exam and a health exam every 2 years.

I am also in favor of enforcing this for all foreign drivers going through my country somehow, since most of them don’t really know how to drive here.

Your grandfather's license should be taken away (and, if he drives anyway, his car should be confiscated so that he stops before more drastic solutions are needed)

One problem we have here (in the UK) is that unless you've committed a crime the most likely person to assess that you shouldn't drive any more is your GP (doctor). But doctors operate in an ethical framework that prioritises the interests of each patient as an individual, resolving both silly theoretical ethical problems ("Do I kill this healthy patient to save these other dying patients?") and real world practical ones. So, "grandpa's driving is bad" only meets the threshold when it's so bad he'd likely die, if he will just kill or injure other people that's not an ethical obstacle in this framework unless grandpa is uncomfortable with it, in which case he should stop driving without waiting for the license to be taken away.

This is something you're seeing in health policy right now. Sticking needles in people's arms is something medics do, but they all operate under this ethical framework. So, while a government may have good reason to vaccinate Bob, the doctor is only willing to vaccinate Bob if Bob wants to be vaccinated and it's personally in Bob's interest, regardless of whether it'd be better for everybody else.

Still, where it's important to public policy you can sidestep the ethical problem by sidestepping the medical procedure, here are two examples used today in the UK:

1. If somebody claims you're the other parent of their children and you owe child support but you disagree, the government can decide to make you get a DNA test (you get a refund if they aren't your kids). But the DNA test is a medical procedure, so if you really don't want it, the medics won't do it. Instead you'll end up in court, and the court will look at the available evidence and most likely say, well, seems to us if you were not the parent of these kids you'd have taken that DNA test and proved it. You owe child support. (Owing child support isn't a crime, so, there's no need to meet the criminal evidence standard).

2. If you're in a vehicle accident or just it seems obvious to them you might be drunk, the police can decide to test for alcohol. Some of the tests they could try don't need a medic but do need your co-operation, others would need a medic. Either way you might refuse and so, the law just provides for a penalty for "Refusing to provide a sample" that's almost exactly the same as the penalty for drink driving you might hope to avoid by doing so.