821–830 of 864 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some manufacturers hold off on newer, untested tech for years before adding that to their vehicles. This is what happens when safely is a priority. That's why I bought/will keep buying Toyota/Lexus.
Euro NCAP etc. seem to classify Teslas as (some of) the safest vehicles on roads. https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/tesla/model+y/46618 Same for NHTSA: https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2022/TESLA/MODEL%2525203/4%252...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody outside of tech understands it this way. "Full Self-Driving Beta" is a marketing stunt that borders on fraud. These cars can't drive themselves for shit, they're not even in beta.
You've misunderstood me. I agree with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it lacks any safety lifecycle process completely demonstrably false > speed of pushing stuff to customers (on the order of days) this is also false and doesn't happen > you cannot possibly claim you can even such a basic things like proper change management (no, commit message isn’t that) or validation. you know absolutely nothing about the internal timelines of developments and deployments at tesla and to suggest…
> > it lacks any safety lifecycle process > completely demonstrably false Head of AP, testified under oath, that they don't know what's Operational Design Domain. I'll just leave it at that. > > speed of pushing stuff to customers (on the order of days) > this is also false and doesn't happen Never ever Musk tweeted about .1 fixing some critical issues coming in next few days? I must live in a different timeline. > >…
Lets say you have a baby which is being born. You tweet, birth in ten days! You can't then say, look: here is a tweet, it proves that baby development in tweeters actually has a several day lifecycle and moreover it proves that baby having mother's don't do proper pre-birth routines, because the tweet isn't the process that created the baby.
It is separate.
> If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Right. So the fact that we have video evidence of internal processes, including QA processes, is much more like looking, swimming, and quacking like a duck much like having video evidence of a mother with a round belly for months before the tweet would be evidence that the babies don't take weeks to develop.
So when Elon has also tweeted that a launch was delayed, because of issues that were discovered - which does happen, as I'm sure you know if you follow his tweets as you imply - then that would be evidence congruent with the video evidence we have of QA processes existing within the company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the fact that you don't know how tesla vets these changes, very extensively, prior to any physical car receiving the update reinforces that you have no idea what you're talking about tesla does extensive, meaningful vetting of these updates. i'll let you do the research yourself so that maybe you can quit spreading misinformation
so well vetted that issues keep happening, so well vetted that a OTA "software patch" is raised to the level of automotive recall. if you call that misinformation, then, "boy, i don't know".
It is well known that issues happen despite extensive vetting. The presence of vetting does not exclude the absence of issues. For example, lets say there are 1000 defects in existence and your diagnostic finds 99% of them. So it finds 990 defects. So now there are 10 defects remaining that are not found. Next you have another detector that finds all defects. How many defect does it see? 10. It is usually going to see about ten defects. Your expectation given vetting is taking place should that be you will tend to observe about ten defects in this particular situation.
So lets say you are someone who is watching that second detector. You observe that you keep seeing defects. Probably, because of selection bias on results, you observe this with an alarming 100% rate of finding defects - the few times no defects happen it doesn't get shared for much the same reason we don't pay attention to drying paint. Can you therefore claim there is no diagnostic that is detecting and removing defects?
Well, not really, because you aren't observing the defects unconditional on the process that removed them. Basically, when you observe 10 defects, that doesn't mean there weren't 990 other defects that were removed. It just means you observed 10 defects.
So the actual evidence you need to use to decide whether there is a diagnostic taking place is evidence that is more strongly conditional on whether it is taking place. You need something that can observe whether the 990 are being caught.
In this case, we have video evidence of extensive QA processes. So that is much stronger than the evidence that defects show up, because defects show up both when we do have a vetting and we don't have a vetting. And each reasonable test case ought to be decreasing the chance of a particular defect that the test case is testing for.
For a much more thorough treatment on this subject check out:
https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/bayesian-probability#:~:text=B....
So that is basically why he disagrees with you.
Tesla definitely needs to root cause the defects that were found and make improvements on the existing vetting process but it is very obvious they do have these processes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some manufacturers hold off on newer, untested tech for years before adding that to their vehicles. This is what happens when safely is a priority. That's why I bought/will keep buying Toyota/Lexus.
Euro NCAP etc. seem to classify Teslas as (some of) the safest vehicles on roads. https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/tesla/model+y/46618 Same for NHTSA: https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2022/TESLA/MODEL%2525203/4%252...
Because of the FSD false promises, Tesla encourages dangerous behavior from drivers.
I don't want to be next to a Tesla driving in autonomous mode while it's driver at the wheel is not paying attention to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fact, there is a huge disconnect between people who design similar systems (Vision, safety, self driving, robotics, simulations) and those who use them. The criticism of Tesla is coming from experts, not jealous competitors. The problem with systems where 99% is a failing grade, is that 99% of the time, they work great. The other 1% you die. No one is against FSD or safer tech. They are against Tesla's haphazard 2…
GREAT comment. I think a large issue is people are really bad at risk assessment. Also, why the hell did they try doing camera only? Fucking dumb as hell. I would have trusted something like FSD a lot more if they had also put in very advanced radar etc. trying on fucking /cameras/ only for newer models should be a criminal offense.
When the model S was at its sales peak from 2013-2020, Lidar was still pretty expensive. So he put cameras in the original Teslas.
When Karpathy took over in 2018-ish, Tesla realized that all their advantages (dataset size, quality of researchers) was in the 2D realm. Waymo had been doing lidar for longer, seemed to have better 3d engineers & could keep upgrading lidar devices as they went.
Tesla's insistence on 2D cameras has to do with stubborn desperation more so than a willingness to play catch up. Elon needs 2D cameras to 'win' because even as early as 2019, he thought that it was too late to start playing catch up in 3D.
I wish all the ink spilled on controversy over Tesla would instead be spilled on doing basic safety improvement to the road system that are cheap and proven to save many lives. Lets be real here, automated driving or not, having actually save roads helps prevent death and harm in many cases. The hyper focus on high tech software by all the agencies engaged in 'automotive security' is totally wrongly focused. What the…
Saying this is like saying we should ignore sex offenders in favor of reworking our society. Instead, we should solve both problems rather than bicker over priorities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a full self driving 'beta' though, it's literally in the name that it isn't final and doesn't have the bugs worked out. You also have to opt in to it.
Wait is your argument adjectives can only be applied to Tesla marketing terms, and not to other English words? What do you think “FSD recall” or “software recall” means Tesla released software that can kill people. It must do a FSD recall This is not the same as Apple doing an OS update, not mandated by a regulatory body because it could kill someone I was hit by a driver not paying attention. I had to get two surger…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. If someone says "Full self driving beta" I'm thinking "The goal is full self driving, the current approach should deliver full self driving, beta means that it requires some tweaks and testing".
Nobody outside of tech understands it this way. "Full Self-Driving Beta" is a marketing stunt that borders on fraud. These cars can't drive themselves for shit, they're not even in beta.
It seems like there is a huge disconnect between people who know about FSD from using it and people who know about FSD from things they read on the internet. I have FSD, I use it every single day. I love it. If every car on the road had this the road would be a substantially safer place.
Ditto. Most fun I've had in a vehicle in my whole life. A robot drives me around every day, and the worst misfeatures are that it's too timid at stop signs and left turns, makes poor lane choices sometimes (oops, can't turn, will go around), occasionally zipper merges like a jerk (yes, technically you can use that lane, but if you try you'll get honked at -- car doesn't care). But the company is run by an asshole who…
"Full self-driving" has not been delivered after years worth of lies. It isn't about "murder and death and moral absolutism". It's about fraud.
Your vehicle is a dead end. It will not be upgraded to the latest hardware. It will not attain "full self-driving".