981–990 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You’re right FSD isn’t an autonomous driving system Oh, weird. Are you not aware it's called Full SELF Driving?
Does the brand name matter? The description should tell you all you need to know when making a purchase decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I don't drive but I would think it would be worse than actually paying attention all the time
You are required to pay attention all the time. That's what the "supervised" in "FSD (supervised)" means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... systems that don’t fail in production. I'll say it again: "compared to what?"
A minimum bar, for societal harm, would be against an identical data set of US drivers. The data for human drivers covers vastly more situations than FSD does. FSD refuses to activate in those situations. So an apples-to-apples comparison doesn't exist. The FSD data is effectively cherry picked for ideal driving conditions. Tesla's claims that FSD is safer than the average driver are not supported by their data, and…
I see where you're coming from. That's totally fair.
As a highly-informed (about health) consumer, I feel the same way about most nutrition advice.
But the parameters for government policy decision-making are different. AND I get your point about cherry-picked data. I'd like to have better data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla FSD on German Autobahn = most dangerous thing ever. The car has never seen this rule and it's not ready for a 300km/h car behind you.
To be fair, Tesla FSD on German Autobahn = impossible because it's not released yet, precisely because it's not trained for German roads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's what I was taught: you switch on your indicators when you have checked that you are clear to merge and you have effectively committed. I always assume that someone who has put their indicators in is going to move according to them, whether it's clear or not.
I don't doubt that it's the way you have been taught, but it doesn't make any sense. The whole point of blinkers/indicator lights in cars are to signal your intentions before you do them: if you're going to signal at the same time that you do the action you're signalling, you might as well not bother.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention that when you can't see, you slow down? Does the self-driving system do that sufficiently in low visibility? Clearly not if it hit a pedestrian with enough force to kill them. The article mentions that Tesla's only use cameras in their system and Musk believes they are enough, because humans only use their eyes. Well firstly, don't you want self-driving systems to be better than humans? Secondly, human…
I think one of the reasons they focus only on vision is basically the entire transportation infra is designed using human eyes a primary way to channel information. Useful information for driving are communicated through images in form of road signs, traffic signals etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's called "Full Self-Driving (Supervised) Beta" and you agree that you understand that you have to pay attention and are responsible for the safety of the car before you turn it on.
Come on, you know it's an oxymoron. "full" and "supervised" don't belong to the same sentence. Ask any 10 year old or a non native English speaker who only learned the language from textbooks for 5 years can tell you that. Just... stop defending Tesla.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think one of the reasons they focus only on vision is basically the entire transportation infra is designed using human eyes a primary way to channel information. Useful information for driving are communicated through images in form of road signs, traffic signals etc.
That's not a reason to only use vision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a reason to only use vision.
I said one of the reasons. They probably did some cost analysis and realised it's not worth spending engineering effort on other modes when human drivers are able to drive around pretty much using only vision.
> They probably did some cost analysis and realised it's not worth spending engineering effort on other modes when human drivers are able to drive around pretty much using only vision.
Humans and cars aren't equal so this is just incredibly misguided as a principle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if someone wants to claim I’m cherry picking the video, happy to shoot a new video with this post visible on an iPad in the seat next to me. Is it autonomous? Hell no. Can it drive in Manhattan? Nope. But can it do >80% of my regular city (suburb outside nyc) and highway driving, yep.
It's so obviously cherry-picking, I have no idea what you are even thinking. To not be cherry-picking would mean that it's actually ready and works fine in all situations, and there's no way Musk would not shout that out from rooftops and sell it yesterday. Obviously it works some time on some roads, but not all the time on all the roads. A film with it when it works on the road it works is cherry-picking. Look up wh…
A claim I never made in any of my posts. What a way to straw man and fail! ;)
Way to cherry pick yourself into the one cherry picked claim I never actually made!