You are completely out of touch with reality if you think the people driving "FSD" beta are eagerly trying to show fault. It's precisely the opposite. You think those who get beta are randomly chosen?
>It's at an effective level 3 already at least in my areas.
That's a loooonnng way from an unattended drive across the country.
You own a car and, I bet, a financial stake in Tesla. Am I right?
Certainly not. We qualify with a safety score and wait for a new batch of cars to be added.
I genuinely don't understand the level of vitriol about this product. There are a lot of these cars out there. Given the demographics of this site, surely one of your friends has one already. Call them up and get a ride. See it for yourself.
I mean, everything looks terrible if you only watch greatest hits on youtube. There are literally whole subreddits dedicated to bad human driving, even. Yet... things work out. This is working far more than it's not, is all I'm saying. And the echo chamber effect has IMHO gotten a little out of control.
This isn't a hard technology to find for yourself. Go try it.
The product doesn't exist. It has not been delivered. Tesla has consistently lied about full-self driving.
Here are some lies about full-self driving hardware: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now...
Here are some further lies about full-self driving delivery: https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-promises-full-self-driving-ne...
I don't rely on anecdata when it comes to public safety and law. Where is the data from Tesla?
Hm, I see videos of pretty terrible FSD fails all the time - stuff like the car veering off into the other lane, trying to drive the pillars of bridges, failing to spot pedestrians and other fun things. It's quite impressive that the system is nearly there, but that I suspect this is the famous final 20% which is gonna be a monumental challenge to overcome
The self-driving AI marketers will tell you it's 99% of the way there!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-17/waymo-s-s...
I'm definitely in the Atwood boat.
It takes more than that. Just think, Uber's driver had lidar, safety driver, and still killed a woman. There's _a lot_ going on under the hood that separates the L4 from L2/L3 drivers.
One thing I think Tesla's missing is a repeatable evaluation framework for how their software performs (a.k.a what you need to convince yourself of the safety). As I understand it, they mostly test autonomous software by deploying it in ghost mode (current/future miles) instead of simulating on past miles. A lot of long tail problems (which is what's hard about autonomous driving) are only visible on the order of millions of miles. Some cases you may never encounter at a high enough rate, and you may need to build synthetic data or use other tricks to teach your driver how to act.
Consider construction zones: where are the lanes formed by the cones? Where should I enter, and where should cars come shooting out? Every construction zone is quite nuanced and contextual -- can you prove the autonomous driver can handle situations reasonably? I think Tesla's software isn't close to being able to crack those driving situations. I mean they make basic mistakes with traffic lights still (which are very challenging in and of themselves; how about those lights where there's an arrow? light that is out?)
If you lack infra to save difficult cases and no ability to generate synthetic situations and resimulate, it gets real dicey when you try to draw conclusions about the real-world performance. Their simulation capabilities are also limited by the fact that they only use cameras; depth estimation / object contours are not accurate enough to do the kinds of sims the Cruise and Waymo do.
Without good ground truth it's really hard to do proper safety evaluation. I suspect Tesla would either need a huge breakthrough in vision technology (maybe they can use something like this https://waymo.com/research/block-nerf) or at least map places their cars are driving so they can properly assess rates to give themselves, regulators, and customers confidence that they are safe for L4. Otherwise, their "good performance" will just be a product of survivorship bias, and bad performance will really hurt people (this is kind of happening now).
> The currently enabled features require a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment.
https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-subscription...
But for sure count me with Carmack. My car is already driving me around my western suburban environment without trouble; zero-intervention drives are the rule now, not the exception. And it's been a long, long time since I've had to intervene for anything reasonably interpretable as a "safety" concern (mostly it's about stuff like navigation decisions, or the car is being a jerk at a merge and I don't want to be honked at, or it's being too slow pulling into an intersection and there's a lot of traffic, etc...).
Don't be fooled by the memery regarding Tesla. There are 60k+ FSD beta cars on the roads now, all of them with eager drivers wanting to post interesting failures to youtube. If these things were genuinely having trouble, we'd know.
It's not "done" for sure (in particular a lot of tuning needs to be done still), but it's at an effective level 3 already at least in my areas. And some work with remote recovery interfaces (something that Tesla doesn't seem to be focusing on) would get it to L4 in the kind of constrained environments Waymo and Cruise are operating in reasonably quickly, IMHO.