111–120 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is pedantic. Human drivers routinely don’t use their turn signals.
What is the end-game here? What do you possibly want to argue? The car was perfectly aware it was making a turn, but decided to not use the turn signal because.. peer pressure? It's baffling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, and it didn't "veer" either, it performed a normal turn. The pedestrians had just started crossing, so it was in the wrong, but barely . It's the sort of manoeuvre that you see human drivers do all the time.
The entire talking point of FSD is that it's supposed to be better than human drivers. This ain't it. >it didn't "veer" either, it performed a normal turn. The definition of veer is "to change direction". This did that. Stop arguing semantics. >The pedestrians had just started crossing I fail to see how this matters at all. Even if the pedestrians hadn't started crossing yet, and were still on the sidewalk, it would…
the entire point of a beta is that it's supposed to be production grade software?
Misleading/Exaggerated HN title. Not an illegal turn. No turn sign applies to the left lane, and it's a one way street
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not signaling in advance for what the car likely considers to be an emergency maneuver is a pretty nitpicky criticism. The problem is the unnecessary emergency maneuver, not the lack of signaling. As for lidar, well lidar isn't perfect either. You might get the same behavior from a lidar car if a trash bag happened to be blown into the road ahead by the wind. All types of sensors rely on machine learning to classify…
> Finally, calling what Tesla is doing "single frame image object classification" really betrays your bias here. That hasn't been an accurate description of the system for a long time. I might think differently if the moon hadn't turned into a traffic light a few months ago. But it did. That kind of failure only happens if you aren't sensing environment geometry. Many of their error scenarios very strongly mimic what…
The truck carrying traffic lights is another fine example:
But allowing live-testing auto-drive technology on public roads is beyound that. Police should just pull over anyone who turn this on and is on the move and revoke driver driving license. Simple as that.
"Oh, but it works for me..." is not how public security standards are created.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Test driving a Tesla Model 3 with autopilot last year was one of the most stressful experiences I’ve ever had. It’s not at all intuitive, and I had no idea what autopilot would/wouldn’t handle.
It might be worth it for Tesla to build a voice system to tell the driver what manoeuvres the car will be doing soon. Although implementing might be just as hard as self driving in the first place.
At least if it would pick a damn option it'd have a 50/50 chance of picking the right one.
Attempts to prohibit repairing things is stupid and it is stupid on regulators part to not seeing it progresses. But allowing live-testing auto-drive technology on public roads is beyound that. Police should just pull over anyone who turn this on and is on the move and revoke driver driving license. Simple as that. "Oh, but it works for me..." is not how public security standards are created.
Before I go on, I'd like to digress and come out as a Waymo fanboi. I've been that ever since I read about a demonstration involving the software developers walking in front of the car, blindfolded. I admire that attitude, I really do. They put their feet where it matters.
But back to Tesla. What other than public roads is similar to public roads, in the senses necessary for testing driving capability? I know Waymo tests its software on recordings of public roads, but those recordings were made on public roads too. Maybe Tesla does the same, I don't know one way or the other. It's not an answer, because this approach doesn't avoid public roads, it only extracts more value from each test drive.
It would be possible to set up a test area. Maybe rent one of those "towns" the film studios have, and use stunt pedestrians, also from the film studios. I worry that those stunt pedestrians wouldn't be really like pedestrians, though, so this too doesn't replace street tests, with the real variety of real people.
These things can supplant public tests. It would be possible to regulate this and say, "software may be used for tests on public tests only when the same version of the same software has been run on one million km of recorded test drives" or such. But as far as I can see, not replace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How long can they get away with charging 10k for something that is trying to crash the car in to bits?
Everything about FSD is truly mindblowing. They sold the product but are not letting most users get the version that tries to be autonomous (and thank god for that). It won't be available to most of these people on the car they purchased it for, and can't be transferred to other cars. That has to end in a refund or class action law suit right? And now they have a subscription available? That also doesn't include thes…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> predicting depth Better than predicting would be enough cameras to get a stereo baseline. But I'm glad at least that 6 years after launch they're finally maybe sort of thinking about it poorly.
Yes, they really ought to dramatically upgrade their cameras. No argument there. Their stereo baseline is too small and the cameras have different lenses so it's unclear if they can even get any stereo information at all. The problem for Tesla is that they already sold FSD on cars that have the existing camera setup. I think there's a good chance that they will get to a point where they realize their existing cameras…
I think it's less realize, and more being forced to acknowledge