Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

teslarati.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#651

Post by simondotau »

numpad0 wrote: post #523
simondotau wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber predicted it was just a few years away in 2016.[1] Google's Sergey Brin predicted driverless cars by 2017.[2] BMW predicted we'd have driverless cars by 2020.[3] Supposedly sober industry analysts predicted 2019.[4] It's also worth pointing out that many of Elon's predictions were not predictions of a finished product, but rather predicting when Tesla would have a system "capable" of self driving, not necessaril…

It does seem like Google did figure out bulk of "it" by 2017. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaOB-ErYq6Y

Many entities have released cherry-picked marketing videos of autonomy appearing to work perfectly under controlled conditions. About as convincing as TV commercials for supermarket deodorant that link use of their product to sexual desirability.

Whether Tesla is ahead or far behind others, they're the only ones exposing their technology to unsupervised assessment by independent third parties in uncontrolled, adversarial conditions. On the other hand Waymo have real, productive, actually driverless cars operating within geofenced areas right now. How do you compare the two? Anyone who claims to know which of the two is "ahead" is either smuggling in unstated qualifiers, or they're blowing smoke.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#652

Post by bastawhiz »

rootusrootus wrote: post #427
bastawhiz wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans have stereoscopic vision Edit: I'd love to know why I'm being downvoted. Tesla cars guess depth with a neural net. Humans have the hardware for getting this data directly. Unless you either have lidar, radar, or dedicated stereoscopic cameras, you don't have real/accurate depth data. And depth data like that stops your car from plowing into white trucks.

This is true. But most of the things perceived while driving are outside of the stereoscopic depth perception ability of humans. IIRC that stops around 20 meters or so.

Unless I've been driving very differently from you, most of the things that I care about the precise distance of are well within 20 meters.

And moreover, it's lucky at best if my Model 3 acknowledges a car 20m away on the preview. It struggles with cars a few feet from me on the diagonal at stoplights.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#653

Post by daveguy »

beardedwizard wrote: post #526
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Why do Tesla go for ML to poorly solve problems long solved by well understood PID controllers? The cynical in me feels this is to do with employees at Tesla want to work with new and shiny ML instead of old boring PID tech for the sake of "resume driven engineering".

Where is the evidence it doesn't use any PID? The wobbling described in the parent is a very PID like behavior (poorly tuned)

I guess everyone is giving Tesla engineers the benefit of the doubt that if they are using a PID they would be competent enough perform a simple proven task for a PID that other car companies have no problem with. I refuse to believe the Tesla engineers are incompetent. So they must be forced into using a "full black box ML" paradigm. There may be a completely different issue that none of us are aware of (faulty sensor, poor mix of both, etc). It is blatant that Tesla vehicles are poor at parking compared to other electric vehicle offerings from BMW, Audi, and Ford.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#655

Post by amf12 »

93po wrote: post #347
Animats wrote: post #306

California was the first state to take autonomous vehicles seriously.[1] DMV licenses them. There's three levels of license. The "learner's permit" is testing with a safety driver. The autonomous license is testing with no safety driver. Deployment is carrying real customers for money. Waymo and Cruise have deployment licenses, which requires testing and evaluation by DMV. You can see their cars running around San Fr…

Waymo and Cruise deploy in extremely limited public situations, including only in the middle of the night, and have been in the news a lot recently for a serious of crashes and software failures, some of which caused a pile up of around a dozen autonomous vehicles just blocking the road that had to be removed with tow trucks and employees. The scope of what Tesla is doing is vastly larger, more future proof, more rel…

> The scope of what Tesla is doing is vastly larger, more future proof, more reliable, and much more difficult to achieve.

I'd say the scope of what Waymo and Cruise are doing is vastly larger. Full Self Driving taxi service, in which they have achieved small milestones.

> Additionally, Tesla's model right now is to have a driver in the seat. They aren't trying to deploy a car without anyone in the driver seat. There's no need for them to have any license other than the one they have.

Well yeah, but they have been promising "full self driving" for a while where the driver won't have to do anything. They also want to have robo taxis in the future for which they should be testing with a license now.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#656

Post by theCrowing »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #576
theCrowing wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moore's law ended? Because Nvidias CEO said so to have an excuse for their dud of a generation? ASM, TSMC, Intel, Apple and AMD are saying it's still going strong.

Do you have any idea who Patterson is?

Why even bring him up repeatedly when he himself says it's not dead yet. Maybe it goes belly up in a year or two but at the moment it's not dead.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#657

Post by theCrowing »

realstooge wrote: post #357
theCrowing wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moore's law ended? Because Nvidias CEO said so to have an excuse for their dud of a generation? ASM, TSMC, Intel, Apple and AMD are saying it's still going strong.

All things considered, there isn't much of a difference between 2012 and 2022 consumer computing. 4/8 cores, all pretty much clocked the same, maybe 8GB/16GB of RAM and 500GB of storage. At best, we optimized the process, optimized edge cases, but not it is certainly not an exponential leap. Between 90-00, we went from 40MHz CPU to 1+ GHZ, 1GB to 100+GB storage capacity. A factor 25 for clock speed, and 100 for stora…

Moores law has nothing to do with performance and the metric is transistor count and like my example in the previous post we exceeded your 1000 figure...

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#658

Post by novok »

myko wrote: post #615
novok wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because he knows that those things are relative commodities, and in 5 or 10 years the rest of the industry will eventually catch up in every single way. Hyundai and ford are pretty much %80 of the way there already.

> n 5 or 10 years the rest of the industry will eventually catch up in every single way. Seems to have already happened? Mercedes EQS/EQB, BMW i4/i7/iX, Polestar, Ioniq All seem better than the comparable Tesla vehicles. Though Tesla does have better features for sitting at chargers, and obviously the super charger network which is a huge thing for anyone taking longer trips.

I did a test drive of a bunch of EVs, and Hyundai makes the Ioniq which I was referencing.

I found that the ford mustang EV and Ioniq had about a %20 worse driving experience than a several year old tesla model 3 LR, and tesla did have a bunch of things that were better. But that also came from being years ahead in making EVs and having a more refined product and driving experience as a result. Driving all the v1 EVs made me realize that they were close, and in a few years they'll probably catch up to tesla on the driving experience. Will they be able to make nice software like tesla will? I'm not so sure.

Mercedes and BMW sell their EVs even more expensive than tesla in many ways too, so their price category is different.

Also cars after a certain point are way more commodity, they wont be able to differentiate like apple does with their products nearly as much.

And that supercharger network advantage will go way in 5 to 10 years too.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#659

Post by [deleted] »

beardedwizard wrote: post #526
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Why do Tesla go for ML to poorly solve problems long solved by well understood PID controllers? The cynical in me feels this is to do with employees at Tesla want to work with new and shiny ML instead of old boring PID tech for the sake of "resume driven engineering".

Where is the evidence it doesn't use any PID? The wobbling described in the parent is a very PID like behavior (poorly tuned)

[deleted]

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#660

Post by wkat4242 »

Moru wrote: post #567
gaius_baltar wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Elon’s claim of “humans drive with eyes so a car can drive with cameras” is naive. Specially because we don't drive with eyes only, we use at least our ears too for hearing unusual noises and the balance sense for detecting vibrations, changes on road surface, and to get feedback about orientation changes.

No idea what resolution those cameras are, can they be as good as our auto-adapting eyes together with our brains? They are pretty neat features after all, trained right. And will we loose our abilities if we don't keep working on them, building our feature set?

Our eyes also have a much greater dynamic range than most cameras. Those are bad in low light and often get blinded easily.
Post reply on HN