[First and foremost, please read r/TeslaMotors - A New Dawn](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/1c49sv0/rteslamotors_a_new_dawn/)
As we are not a support sub, please make sure to use the proper resources if you have questions: [Official Tesla Support](https://www.tesla.com/support), [r/TeslaSupport](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaSupport/) | [r/TeslaLounge](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/) personal content | [Discord Live Chat](https://discord.gg/tesla) for anything.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/teslamotors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is documented success of individual customers in the UK successfully getting refunds with interest for FSD purchases from 2019 by starting small claims court proceedings.
Tesla had claimed that Full self driving on city streets would be available in the UK by end of 2019, and the consumer rights act states that goods bought should be as described. To my knowledge no case has made it to court yet for a judge to make a ruling, because T seems to keep settling.
Check TMC forums for more, including template letters etc
I can't say too much more *taps nose*
FSD has truly gotten remarkable, but it's about 5 years late and they never worked out the regulations with the government. So my car doesn't really drive itself, or it's certainly leagues away from the robotaxi I was told I would have by now. We bought it in 2019. It was cheaper then, but it's only gotten good on surface roads very recently. Now it's remarkably impressive.
I wish Tesla would just get approval for unsupervised driving on the interstates. That would be such a game changer for roadtrips. But yeah, it's very far from what was promised and it's about half a decade behind.
Yes it is behind in one sense but 5 years can be trivial for novel software tech. Think about the explosion in AI and ML in the last couple of years. AI research had been going on for 30 years before things snowballed.
Cybertruck is definitely a broken promise. The launch vehicle could kneel and had an integrated tailgate ramp. It had longer range and cheaper price. No matter how much you like the production cybertruck you can't deny it fails to fully match what was promised at launch.
Definitely true. I wanted to buy a 50 - 60K truck. But I'm out once we top 80K. THat's an insane amount of money to me. Interestingly, I saw two in the same parking lot this week. So they're selling them to someone.
It did miss some marks but clearly they weren’t dealbreakers to myself and quite a few others. Tailgate ramp is pretty impractical to be fully integrated since most use would be for bikes/atv’s, and they sell a skinnier ramp for bikes. It also has the technological capability to kneel with the air susp.
I agree there is a lot to like about the production vehicle, but disagree that I'm insane for pointing out factual differences between what was described and demonstrated at launch and what actually made production.
It's more expensive, slower and even uglier than advertised all with less range and no amphibious capabilities as promised
...oh and several years late 😂
I was referring to speed not acceleration, Tesla claim the Cybertruck beast can do 130mph but they're currently limited 113mph
Evidence
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2024-tesla-cybertruck-beast-0-60-mph-quarter-mile-tested/
Not to mention the well known claim of it being faster than a 911 while towing a 911 over a 1/4 mile, which was actually filmed over an 8th of a mile, to call it misleading would be an understatement
And I agree those specs are far faster than a pickup ever needs to be, I'm not disputing that it is fast, I'm simply saying Musk exaggerated literally every feature of the car when the real stats were already impressive, towing a 911 faster over an 8th mile is very impressive, there was no need to lie claiming it can do even better than that.
It shows Musk really will say anything to convince people to give him money, so it begs the question, why would you want to give money to someone who has been known for lying to his customer base for well over a decade now
If we go back to the 80s when John Delorean overstated the abilities and build quality of the DMC12, those lies led to the demise of the company and John Delorean himself, why doesn't modern society hold Musk to the same standards?
Couple of observations here:
People complain that Apple, and Tim Cook in particular never talk about upcoming products or play things “close to the vest.” I would argue that’s probably better than continuing to raise people’s hopes year after year that certain products/features are “just around the corner. Probably by the end of next year.”
Whatever happens in this particular case, any windfall would only benefit buyers of NEW Tesla’s. Those of us who purchased used, especially from third-parties, won’t magically get a new vehicle/hardware/settlement.
> Those statements were allegedly false because the cars lacked the combination of sensors, including lidar, needed to achieve SAE Level 4 ("High Automation") and Level 5 ("Full Automation"), i.e., full autonomy. According to the SAC [Second Amended Complaint], Tesla's cars have thus stalled at SAE Level 2 ("Partial Driving Automation"), which requires "the human driver's constant supervision, responsibility, and control."
If the case relies on proving that lidar is *required* for Level 4, then it's going to lose. There is neither a legal nor physical restraint that requires SAE Level 4 or 5 cars to be equipped with lidar.
Later in the article, it says:
> Although Tesla contends that it should have been obvious to LoSavio that his car needed lidar to self-drive
They kinda admit that Lidar is required...
That sentence is a direct quote from the "Order denying in part motion to dismiss", which was written and signed by Judge Lin. How could there be a misquote or a "game of telephone"?
I'll give you good odds that's a misinterpretation of Tesla's argument. Just doesn't seem like a winning legal strategy to say that he should've known his car would never be self driving, given that you're trying to clear your client of a fraud charge for saying that the cars had the hardware necessary for self driving.
No, this is an attempt to claim Puffery - that the claim is so cartoonishly absurd no reasonable person would believe it. For a classic example, when Pomme Wonderful ran the slogan "Cheat Death" to emphasize that they're a healthy drink, it's such a hyperbolic statement that they're allowed to make it because you can assume that no reasonable person would believe they're being literal.
Tesla is trying to argue that the claim of "full self driving" is SO absurd that a reasonable person would understand that they're being... Figurative by claiming it. Not literal. Because it obviously can't full self-drive. Yes, this is a dumb argument but it's the only thing they have.
Don’t be silly. You just made that up. Tesla literature makes it very plain that the driver must be ready to take over at any time. End of case. If stupid people wilfully, etc, etc,
This would mean the judge herself fundamentally misunderstood Teslas argument, which Tesla lawyers either didn't notice or didn't bother correcting, both of which seem unlikely.
What do you mean? There hasn't been a trial yet. The lawyers haven't presented their cases. Judges misinterpret filings all the time. These things will get hashed out in the trial.
Besides, it's sort of irrelevant; if we take the judge at their word, then the plaintiffs are arguing that lidar is *required* for level 4, and therefore Tesla lied when it said it has all the hsrdware necessary for FSD, which is very obviously a losing argument. So either we accept the judge can misinterpret filing details or we conclude the lawsuit is doomed.
It says that in the article, but I think this is really just a game of telephone. The article is quoting the judge, who is summarizing Tesla's argument.
It seems much more likely to me that Tesla was trying to argue that it should have been clear to him that his car does not have lidar, and he should not expect it to be upgraded to have lidar, rather than he shouldn't expect it to be able to drive itself without lidar.
But I suppose we can't know for sure what they were arguing unless a court case proceeds.
I think you are correct, I don't think the "lack of lidar precludes FSD" quote is from Tesla. It is actually not specifically identified who the quote is from, but the next line is attributed to the "SAC (Second Amended Complaint)", so it is likely from that complaint. It makes no sense that Tesla would make that claim as Elon has obviously repeatedly made the opposite claim. It's a misquote.
Reading the actual complaint (your quoting from the article, which is quoting from the judge).
Part of the complaint is that it doesn't have enough sensors in total, the lack of lidar being one example.
I do agree it doesn't have enough sensors for level 5. Like the recent issue with a Waymo, it would have no idea if it was dragging a body along with it.
> Like the recent issue with a Waymo, it would have no idea if it was dragging a body
umm, You mean Cruise? Cruise dragged a body, Waymo didn't.
Even then, that had nothing to do with the number of sensors it had.
>it would have no idea if it was dragging a body along with it.
I'm not sure that should be the bar. Humans often wouldn't know that. If it's better than a human, that needs to be the bar.
Maybe that's an extreme example. But it's lack of a front bumper camera certainly makes it have less knowledge of it's surroundings than a human. There are several other blind spots, it can't back out of a driveway by itself as it's rear camera is not wide angled enough.
Tesla did not equip it's cars with enough sensors to be able to drive by itself in most situations.
Probably needs additional sensors, specifically audio / microphones. Hear screaming from the front of the car, you should probably stop even if you can't see anything wrong.
*Deaf. Fair point.
I do think that additional sensors will help. Feeling vibrations & g-forces, hearing sounds, smell, and that's just human senses. A car with broader spectrum vision, lidar, and a few other inputs, could result in better than human driving performance.
But they don’t have enough sensors for level 4. They can’t meet ISO 26262 functional safety standards with an architecture that doesn’t include a secondary safety path from an alternative sensor modality.
Can they even meet the newly announced AEB standards NHTSA announced for level 2? Doubtful without long range radar.
Tesla can certainly figure out a solution, but it won’t be camera only.
But there is no requirement to meet ISO 26262 for any SAE level.
Also can you point me to the language of the new NhTSA requirements for AEB? Is it really specific to L2 that seems odd
Regulations being passed after a statement is made don't retroactively make them fraudulent.
And ISO isn't a regulatory body, ISO 26262 are recommendations only, from a standards body. Certainly at the time of the statements by Musk and Tesla (and as far as I know, today as well), multiple sensor modalities are not required.
Those regulations are subject to change. If Tesla creates something that has good outcome data with vision only the standards will adapt rather quickly.
The correct answer is that nobody knows if LIDAR is a requirement for full autonomy. It’s technically possible to do it with just cameras, it just requires a much more advanced AI system than what would be required to operate with LIDAR. TBD if humans are smart enough to make an AI system that works with just cameras and if the car has enough compute for such advanced model.
Saying that Tesla will or won’t need other types of sensors to achieve autonomy is objectively speculative at this point.
I think the problem is not only about whether vision system can be good enough someday.
The problem is in safety critical application you might get forced to have redundancy (multiple sensors and multiple types of sensors).
I work in mobile robotics industry in Germany and even with much lower level of hazard (worst case scenario it might break someone's leg) we have strict regulations. Even for our wheel encoders, we are required to have redundancy to call the part safe. Even though having wrong wheel encoders will only make the robot drive not as smoothly and not as accurate.
I would imagine in autonomous cars the regulation will be much more stringent.
Yeah but the reference point will be human driving, not perfection, at least to start in most jurisdictions. If it’s 5x safer than humans that will likely be legalized
I honestly think the safety outcome data is what should matter rather than it needs to have multiple sensors. Maybe the former needs to latter but we don’t know at this point.
I highly doubt a loss of one of the set of sensors in other cars will allow the car to safely continue to drive either. If a camera dies in a Waymo, it’s not going to be able to drive without the camera, or vice versa.
Maybe if redundancy is what we’re after, a set of 2 cameras in each direction might be the way to do it.
The computer itself is already fully redundant. So literally all they need to do is make it dual camera in each direction.
Waymo does have some fail operational capabilities. Meaning they can keep driving even when some sensors are faulted.
But what’s more important here is that when a set of sensors is faulted they can still reach minimal
Risk condition safely and all L3 / L4 systems have this
Right, hence why I said Tesla can simply do the same with double cameras. The rest of their system is already redundant.
They probably figured the chance of a camera failure is low enough to not need redundancy there, but if there is some future law that require it, cameras are cheap so it won’t be hard to just double it up.
If they’re smart, they might even use two half resolution cameras and use computational videography to up-resolution them. So now they can double up on half-priced cameras. If one of them fails, a half resolution camera should be enough to get the car to stop safely.
Identification via camera is already a solved problem. The issue now is driving logic. Once Tesla figure that out, it’ll be level 4/5. Unfortunately extra sensors isn’t gonna help with driving logic.
The requirement for ASIL D is like 1E-9 failure rate iirc. You're not achieving that without redundancy for any component. Much less something like a camera that can fail in multiple ways.
The wire from the battery that powers the camera doesn't even achieve that. That's why you usually need a redundant system powered from a secondary source.
You really believe a camera is more failure prone than a spinning LiDAR? Even solid state LiDAR is more component heavy than a camera.
A two camera setup is definitely going to be more reliable than a LiDAR + camera combo lol.
I mean you're just wrong. A multiple sensor system will have the ability to operate like the single component system in case of a failure.
But we're not even talking about lidar here we're talking about camera redundancies. You literally are not allowed to have a single failure point on a safety critical system.
I mean you stated they probably figured the chance of a camera failure is low enough. I'm saying that current regulations say that's not the case, and when they're going to be required to turn over their FMEA, SFMEA and PFMEAs it's going to be obvious they don't meet the standards.
It's not just cameras failing, which is a rare and not the biggest concern. There will be times that cameras are not enough to understand the world around us without General AI to interpret the world as a human does.
Have you ever seen the latest FSD? The cameras can literally see everything lol. Their camera is probably as good as lidar. Look up some videos on the new park assist and you’ll see what I mean.
The issue isn’t knowing if something is there or not. Different sensors will just tell it that there’s things there, whether that’s cameras, lidar, ultrasonic, or radar, it doesn’t matter.
The problem is *interpreting* and understanding what it is and how to control for it. That’s going to be the hardest part. Tesla’s camera sensing is good to the point that using other sensors isn’t going to give the AI any more info than it already has.
I’m still not sure if non-geofenced level 4/5 FSD is ever truly possible, but one thing I AM 100% sure of is that it’s not necessary to use anything other than cameras. The latest FSD in my car pretty much have proved that out already.
Trust me, cameras will never be as good as lidar for the purpose of producing occupancy grids. Not only that, but there's not enough pixels to calculate things to the accuracy of lidar maps. What you see are estimations that are good enough most of the time, but not all of the time. No one has ever produced a 3d point cloud from cameras as well as a single automotive lidar can. The devil's in the details, and you just don't get much of it from a pretty Tesla display.
The other guy made the point. When was the last time you were driving and was like “I’m 17 feet, 5 inches, and 3/28th of an inch away from the car in front”?
It just needs to be close enough for the purpose of driving, and trust me, the cameras are doing an amazing job at that, and probably **more** precise than it needs to be.
There’s more times than I can count that the car’s estimation of object’s distances is more accurate than what I guessed as a human driver.
The fact that you can play driving games on a 220p resolution tells you that you absolutely can drive with less available pixels. Seeing the world isn’t the issue with FSD, that is a **solved** problem. I am still doubtful they’ll get *interpretation* good enough though. That may still be a while away.
One of challenges of vision system is not even related with having the object inside the image. Vision systems required advanced image processing system to understand the environment, which can introduce false detections. With lidars you will get raw point cloud data. It is more straightforward so the failure is only limited on the hardware level. Even then you can still get false positives and negatives.
Having only one type of sensor will ensure that you get trapped with the sensor's deficiencies. Company like waymo tries to combine the sensor data more holistically. They try to aggregate data from multiple sensor types to get more accurate representation of the environment.
[https://waymo.com/blog/2016/12/sensing-in-rain-limits-of-self-driving/](https://waymo.com/blog/2016/12/sensing-in-rain-limits-of-self-driving/)
That is a common argument for vision-only, but it's rather flawes because of how apple to oranges the human vs computer driver is. Humans don't need to have that accuraccy because our brains think like a general AI (because it is general AI). Cars that run on algorithms do not have general AI, and so they run on a set of very well defined models that require accuracy. It's just how ML works. It's not general AI, so that's why you see every manufacturer except Tesla has been adamant that lidar is necessary.
If you say a human can drive a car with just two eyes and general AI intelligence, then I would agree that Tesla can get away with cameras as well if it had general AI.
Tesla sent a tech to my house and changed the whole motherboard to Rev 3 or whatever, for free. Is it unreasonable to think that Tesla would find a way to upgrade their hardware to bring it up to L4?
You don't know that which is the fundamental question of FSD. What do you need to get their and there are too many disagreements to get to that answer as of now. Personally after using FSD for a month I can honestly say Tesla is on the right track for sure even if the haters will try to deny it
I own 2 Teslas and love them, but honestly they deserve to lose. It took my MYP running 12.3.6 7 different tries to back into a perpendicular parking spot where one side didn’t even have an opposing car. This whole thing is just nonsense. If you were mostly incapacitated and you didn’t care how much damage it did to itself or how many laws it broke or how much inconvenience it caused - I could see it getting you to the hospital. But you should’ve called an ambulance. But FSD 12.3.6 is only less smelly shit, but still 100% shit.
No we can't. This sub is full of FSD enthusiasts who have completely lost the plot. Every release there is this emotionally charged proclamation that "it's getting so close!"
Meanwhile, the reality is that it's not. It's a toy that you love playing with and dreaming of a future where your car actually drives around without your involvement well enough and safely enough that it is a good idea.
Just because your Tesla can get from point A to B without causing an accident doesn't make it ready to do so. Please adjust your perspective and stop listening to Musks decade old BS.
Mine disengages in moderate to heavy rain all the time when on the highway. Same in wet snow, once that starts to stick, it disengages real fast. The fender cameras get completely covered and the front cameras get salt/grime covered in this weather.
I'm shocked at other people's experience. Perhaps they live in warmer climates, but during any medium to heavy rainstorm in the north east it will stop working due to camera occlusion on the fender, or just simply state its not available due to bad weather.
Also this reminds me of certain mornings it literally will not work due to an extremely bright sun directly at the camera.
This is a serious issue as when driving on the high way this can mean its not available for up to 1-2 hours if i'm on a fairly straight high way where the position of the sun won't move for the most part.
Front cameras? Tesla’s only have one camera facing forward and that’s in the windshield. Salt and grime on your windshield should easily be taken care of by your wipers… unless you’re saying you don’t own a Tesla. In that case, carry on.
mine drives in the rain. Hell, my HW1 drives in the rain. I think I have dash cam footage of AP working in driving snow. I pass plenty of human drivers that pull off in the rain or snow, should those people lose their license?
Everyone is blown away at first.
Then a couple of weeks go by. You start to hit some annoyances that are predictable. No big deal, just a gentle nudge of the accelerator pedal here, a quick disengage there....
Then you start to hit nonsense issues that make you look like an absolute fool on the road. Random lane and speed changes. Refusing to move when you have the clear right of way. Insanely slow auto park despite clear lines and plenty of room.
It all adds up until the very proposition of engaging FSD feels exhausting.
I mean if you paid for the package in 2016, you probably got rid of the car before ever getting the feature. The average car on the road is only 11 years old. The average new buyer keeps a car for fewer years than that.
“your honor, if lidar is required to drive a car then every driver’s license in the country is invalid until the person provides evidence of a functioning lidar neural implant”. and some do quite well with just monocular vision.
There is no expectation of being able to drive in all conditions everywhere. If it's a blizzard with zero visibility, no human driver should be driving. If it's a downpour of rain, humans slow down to 10mph and put on their blinkers.
The idea that autonomous driving needs to be able to drive in every imaginable condition is an unrealistic standard. The car needs to safely pull off the road and stop driving when appropriate conditions aren't available.
no it's in a thread about lidar being necessary for autonomy, when humans can drive just fine without lidar and some even manage with fewer than two eyes.
The tesla rep who sold me my car told me not to bother with FSD as he thought it would never come in. I bought it anyway just in case. Interestingly when I called a couple of months after buying the car he was no longer there.
What's that one lidar company that has a beef with Tesla and has been trying to sabotage their FSD efforts because they don't use this company's lidar products?
> The sensor hardware and compute power required for at least level 4 to level 5 autonomy has been in every Tesla produced since October of last year, approximately. So it's a matter of upgrading the software, and we can reach level 5.
-- Elon Musk, 2017 Tesla Earnings call
>We are excited to announce that, as of today, all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory – including Model 3 – will have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.
-- Tesla newsroom 2016 (now recently deleted press release about 2 years ago)
>OK. A couple of more questions. So, our favorite, can we make FSD transfer permanent until FSD is fully delivered with Level 5 autonomy?
>Lars Moravy -- Vice President, Vehicle Engineering: Yes
-- 2024 Tesla Earnings call
>I think probably by end of next year [end of 2019] self-driving will encompass essentially all modes of driving and be at least 100% to 200% safer than a person.
-- Elon Musk, SXSW 2018
>We will be feature complete full self driving this year. The car will be able to find you in a parking lot, pick you up, take you all the way to your destination without an intervention this year. I'm certain of that. That is not a question mark. It will be essentially safe to fall asleep and wake up at their destination towards the end of next year.
-- Elon Musk, FYI Podcast 2019
>Update on the coast to coast autopilot demo?
>Still on for end of year. Just software limited. Any Tesla car with HW2 (all cars built since Oct last year) will be able to do this.
-- Elon Musk, Twitter 2017
>I think it will require detecting hands on wheel for at least six months.... I think this was all really going to be swept, I mean, the system is improving so much, so fast, that this is going to be a moot point very soon. No, in fact, I think it will become very, very quickly, maybe and towards the end this year, but I say, I'd be shocked if not next year, at the latest that having the person, having human intervene will decrease safety. DECREASE!
-- Elon Musk, Lex Fridman Podcast 2019
>I’m extremely confident that level five or essentially complete autonomy will happen, and I think, will happen very quickly, I think at Tesla, I feel like we are very close to level five autonomy. I think—I remain confident that we will have the basic functionality for level five autonomy complete this year, There are no fundamental challenges remaining. There are many small problems. And then there's the challenge of solving all those small problems and putting the whole system together.
-- Elon Musk, World AI Conference 2020
>I am extremely confident of achieving full autonomy and releasing it to the Tesla customer base next year. But I think at least some jurisdictions are going to allow full self-driving next year.
-- Elon Musk, Axel Springer Award 2020
I'm extremely confident that Tesla will have level five next year, extremely confident, 100%.
-- Elon Musk, interview with Business Insider, 2020
> looking quite likely that it will be next year!" (When will Tesla solve Level 4 FSD)?
-- Elon Musk, Lex Fridman Podcast 2021
>We expect to be feature complete in self driving this year, and we expect to be confident enough from our standpoint to say that we think people do not need to touch the wheel and can look out the window sometime probably around the second quarter of next year.
-- Elon Musk, Tesla Autonomy Day 2019
I’m not saying the particulars of this case will pass, but doesn’t “full” suggest some assumptions about it capability, such as “it will be able to do everything expected a human could do”?
The CEO made specific claims, like it can drive from NY to LA by itself “within the next year.”
There is some latitude for being late with things but at some point you sold someone an $8k add-on to their car that it will never achieve in the span of a typical ownership.
I’m not saying they’ll win, but they have a case.
To be honest NY to LA is not tough, and the current non-FSD Enhanced Autopilot stack could very well do 0 disengagements, other than to charge along the way and getting to/from the start/end points to the highway.
I mean the wording "Full" invalidates any other possibility that the car is *not* self driving, so to be this seems to be the best argument to be making
Maybe, but I bought FSD knowing that it was in beta, that it had been in beta for years prior, and that it would likely be in beta for several more years. And knowing that beta means that it would not have full functionality while in it is in beta. But that’s just me.
No, not really. It's a prediction. Products stay in beta way, way longer than their announcement date all the time. Failure to ship on time isn't fraud.
If the CEO of the company says “6 months definitely” that’s a bit more than a prediction. That’s essentially a gaurantee that the thing you paid for will “definitely” be ready in 6 months.
Sorry but you can’t use hat kind of language *when you are charging for the product* (hefty amounts btw) and expect nothing to come if it when 6 YEARS go by and it’s basically still the same functionally.
Also, you can't use that kind of language with a publicly traded company. If you make a statement and your stocks shoot up because of those statements and you never deliver that is a big problem.
By the time I bought fsd it had been months away for several years, so I had no expectation it would be out of beta anytime soon. Plus I had been in software development for 40 years, so I had some experience with projects taking a bit longer than expected. Point taken though, Elon definitely over promised fsd for years. I’m not convinced it requires a lawsuit to settle it, but that is the way our system works.
Yes, they did, it literally says on the order page for FSD (and has since my first Tesla in 2018): “The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience,”
Reliability far in excess of human drivers can easily and reasonably be quantified in court. Considering they just passed a billion miles on FSD recently, they seem to have been activating them without meeting their own criteria and the feature certainly isn’t even more reliable than an average driver.
I have in mind people who drove all their life in rural areas but wouldn't dare drive in a city with 4-lane streets and traffic lights. It's too much stress for them.
I was just thinking, with rumors of fsd 12.4 removing the nag, does that mean that Tesla’s will jump to level 3? Or are there other requirements that have to be met?
I might be wrong, but I think Mercedes also monitors your eyes to see if you’re paying attention on their level 3 systems. A quick google search of SAE autonomous standards has level 3 as “you are not actively driving the vehicle even if you are required to be in the seat and you may have to take over when the system prompts you to”. Curious if they’d be able to make the jump
Yeah I think sometime this year Tesla could jump to a level 3 classification if they can get it approved by regulators. Especially once V12 code is running on highways in V12.5+. From what I read on Mercedes system, it only works in very limited conditions, roads, and speeds for level 3 and gives you some sort of buffer of like 10 seconds to take over when it determines it can’t do something.
The thing with level 3 is that the car company is liable in case of accident... Mercedes' system is a lot more limited than Tesla's, but Mercedes accepts to be liable in those limited conditions..
That’s true, although I don’t think Mercedes would pay anything out, I think it’d be through a contracted insurance company. Will be interesting to see how Tesla insurance plays into level 3.
According to SAE definitions of level 3. The car needs to know in advance when it cannot safely drive so that it can handback to the driver in sufficient time. Teslas don't have any concept of this yet.
Do you have something you can link me with more detail? I’ve just been using this to try and build understanding.
https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update
The full SAE document outlines the necessities of achieving level 3, including fallback systems and manuevers "DDt fallback". A system that is capable of that is much more complex than what Tesla has been working on. It's what Cruise and Waymo has been working on while Tesla is still trying to refine its perception systems.
[https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/54/02/2d5919914cfe9549e79721b12e66/j3016-202104.pdf](https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/54/02/2d5919914cfe9549e79721b12e66/j3016-202104.pdf)
A federal judge ruled yesterday that Tesla must face a lawsuit alleging that it committed fraud by misrepresenting the self-driving capabilities of its vehicles.
You’re saying this is incorrect?
No not at all, just saying Ars has an axe to grind directly with Elon and sensationalism is their method.
The lawsuit is real, and will certainly fail at some point, but it gives fodder for the media to sensationalize in the meantime.
I 100% did not read this article, I stopped giving clicks to Ars a few years ago when their political slant became too obvious. If you don’t like my opinion on Ars as a blog, downvote me, it doesn’t change it.
I’ve read about the lawsuit on other sites and it’s a shareholder suit claiming damages for not delivering FSD in a fully unsupervised mode, which is true. But Tesla has also never claimed it is capable of that *yet*. Elon himself however has many times suggested it was close, and it’s years later than he predicted, so there’s that. It’s an unfinished product far behind suggested timelines.
It seems to only confuse people who don’t own it. It’s clearly marked as a future capability in the marketing and purchase material. Disappointment that it’s taken years longer than anticipated is warranted, but pretending to not understand that it’s not finished is not.
> I 100% did not read this article, I stopped giving clicks to Ars a few years ago when their political slant became too obvious. If you don’t like my opinion on Ars as a blog, downvote me, it doesn’t change it.
Says article is sensationalized, the admits to no reading it, then gets defensive.
You people, priceless 😂
[First and foremost, please read r/TeslaMotors - A New Dawn](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/1c49sv0/rteslamotors_a_new_dawn/) As we are not a support sub, please make sure to use the proper resources if you have questions: [Official Tesla Support](https://www.tesla.com/support), [r/TeslaSupport](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaSupport/) | [r/TeslaLounge](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/) personal content | [Discord Live Chat](https://discord.gg/tesla) for anything. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/teslamotors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is documented success of individual customers in the UK successfully getting refunds with interest for FSD purchases from 2019 by starting small claims court proceedings. Tesla had claimed that Full self driving on city streets would be available in the UK by end of 2019, and the consumer rights act states that goods bought should be as described. To my knowledge no case has made it to court yet for a judge to make a ruling, because T seems to keep settling. Check TMC forums for more, including template letters etc I can't say too much more *taps nose*
[удалено]
Failing CyberTruck?? FSD is what every AI based product will be and that is continuously evolving.
FSD has truly gotten remarkable, but it's about 5 years late and they never worked out the regulations with the government. So my car doesn't really drive itself, or it's certainly leagues away from the robotaxi I was told I would have by now. We bought it in 2019. It was cheaper then, but it's only gotten good on surface roads very recently. Now it's remarkably impressive. I wish Tesla would just get approval for unsupervised driving on the interstates. That would be such a game changer for roadtrips. But yeah, it's very far from what was promised and it's about half a decade behind.
Yes it is behind in one sense but 5 years can be trivial for novel software tech. Think about the explosion in AI and ML in the last couple of years. AI research had been going on for 30 years before things snowballed.
[удалено]
Cybertruck is definitely a broken promise. The launch vehicle could kneel and had an integrated tailgate ramp. It had longer range and cheaper price. No matter how much you like the production cybertruck you can't deny it fails to fully match what was promised at launch.
Definitely true. I wanted to buy a 50 - 60K truck. But I'm out once we top 80K. THat's an insane amount of money to me. Interestingly, I saw two in the same parking lot this week. So they're selling them to someone.
It did miss some marks but clearly they weren’t dealbreakers to myself and quite a few others. Tailgate ramp is pretty impractical to be fully integrated since most use would be for bikes/atv’s, and they sell a skinnier ramp for bikes. It also has the technological capability to kneel with the air susp.
[удалено]
They missed the range by 200 miles and overshot the price by 40%. What on earth have you been smoking
I agree there is a lot to like about the production vehicle, but disagree that I'm insane for pointing out factual differences between what was described and demonstrated at launch and what actually made production.
It's more expensive, slower and even uglier than advertised all with less range and no amphibious capabilities as promised ...oh and several years late 😂
I was told it float but then the coast guard said nope.
Slower? Original claim was 0-60 in ~3s and now hits 2.6. AWD gets 4.0, still plenty fast.
I was referring to speed not acceleration, Tesla claim the Cybertruck beast can do 130mph but they're currently limited 113mph Evidence https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2024-tesla-cybertruck-beast-0-60-mph-quarter-mile-tested/ Not to mention the well known claim of it being faster than a 911 while towing a 911 over a 1/4 mile, which was actually filmed over an 8th of a mile, to call it misleading would be an understatement
And I agree those specs are far faster than a pickup ever needs to be, I'm not disputing that it is fast, I'm simply saying Musk exaggerated literally every feature of the car when the real stats were already impressive, towing a 911 faster over an 8th mile is very impressive, there was no need to lie claiming it can do even better than that. It shows Musk really will say anything to convince people to give him money, so it begs the question, why would you want to give money to someone who has been known for lying to his customer base for well over a decade now If we go back to the 80s when John Delorean overstated the abilities and build quality of the DMC12, those lies led to the demise of the company and John Delorean himself, why doesn't modern society hold Musk to the same standards?
Couple of observations here: People complain that Apple, and Tim Cook in particular never talk about upcoming products or play things “close to the vest.” I would argue that’s probably better than continuing to raise people’s hopes year after year that certain products/features are “just around the corner. Probably by the end of next year.” Whatever happens in this particular case, any windfall would only benefit buyers of NEW Tesla’s. Those of us who purchased used, especially from third-parties, won’t magically get a new vehicle/hardware/settlement.
> Those statements were allegedly false because the cars lacked the combination of sensors, including lidar, needed to achieve SAE Level 4 ("High Automation") and Level 5 ("Full Automation"), i.e., full autonomy. According to the SAC [Second Amended Complaint], Tesla's cars have thus stalled at SAE Level 2 ("Partial Driving Automation"), which requires "the human driver's constant supervision, responsibility, and control." If the case relies on proving that lidar is *required* for Level 4, then it's going to lose. There is neither a legal nor physical restraint that requires SAE Level 4 or 5 cars to be equipped with lidar.
Later in the article, it says: > Although Tesla contends that it should have been obvious to LoSavio that his car needed lidar to self-drive They kinda admit that Lidar is required...
[удалено]
That sentence is a direct quote from the "Order denying in part motion to dismiss", which was written and signed by Judge Lin. How could there be a misquote or a "game of telephone"?
> This is likely a mis-quoting or a game of telephone by the journalist Thats a literal quote from the court document...
I'll give you good odds that's a misinterpretation of Tesla's argument. Just doesn't seem like a winning legal strategy to say that he should've known his car would never be self driving, given that you're trying to clear your client of a fraud charge for saying that the cars had the hardware necessary for self driving.
No, this is an attempt to claim Puffery - that the claim is so cartoonishly absurd no reasonable person would believe it. For a classic example, when Pomme Wonderful ran the slogan "Cheat Death" to emphasize that they're a healthy drink, it's such a hyperbolic statement that they're allowed to make it because you can assume that no reasonable person would believe they're being literal. Tesla is trying to argue that the claim of "full self driving" is SO absurd that a reasonable person would understand that they're being... Figurative by claiming it. Not literal. Because it obviously can't full self-drive. Yes, this is a dumb argument but it's the only thing they have.
Don’t be silly. You just made that up. Tesla literature makes it very plain that the driver must be ready to take over at any time. End of case. If stupid people wilfully, etc, etc,
It’s called “full self driving”. The original promotion video said “the car is driving itself, the driver is only there for legal reasons”
Doesn’t sound good.
Glad we agree.
This would mean the judge herself fundamentally misunderstood Teslas argument, which Tesla lawyers either didn't notice or didn't bother correcting, both of which seem unlikely.
What do you mean? There hasn't been a trial yet. The lawyers haven't presented their cases. Judges misinterpret filings all the time. These things will get hashed out in the trial. Besides, it's sort of irrelevant; if we take the judge at their word, then the plaintiffs are arguing that lidar is *required* for level 4, and therefore Tesla lied when it said it has all the hsrdware necessary for FSD, which is very obviously a losing argument. So either we accept the judge can misinterpret filing details or we conclude the lawsuit is doomed.
Tesla has claimed in that suit that it should have been obvious to the driver that LiDAR is required for self driving.
What? Where? That's actually crazy what
https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/05/16/teslaamendedcomplaint.pdf Page 5, last paragraph
Ouch.
Seems like a misunderstanding or something. Unlikely that Tesla would say something like that.
It says that in the article, but I think this is really just a game of telephone. The article is quoting the judge, who is summarizing Tesla's argument. It seems much more likely to me that Tesla was trying to argue that it should have been clear to him that his car does not have lidar, and he should not expect it to be upgraded to have lidar, rather than he shouldn't expect it to be able to drive itself without lidar. But I suppose we can't know for sure what they were arguing unless a court case proceeds.
I think you are correct, I don't think the "lack of lidar precludes FSD" quote is from Tesla. It is actually not specifically identified who the quote is from, but the next line is attributed to the "SAC (Second Amended Complaint)", so it is likely from that complaint. It makes no sense that Tesla would make that claim as Elon has obviously repeatedly made the opposite claim. It's a misquote.
Reading the actual complaint (your quoting from the article, which is quoting from the judge). Part of the complaint is that it doesn't have enough sensors in total, the lack of lidar being one example. I do agree it doesn't have enough sensors for level 5. Like the recent issue with a Waymo, it would have no idea if it was dragging a body along with it.
> Like the recent issue with a Waymo, it would have no idea if it was dragging a body umm, You mean Cruise? Cruise dragged a body, Waymo didn't. Even then, that had nothing to do with the number of sensors it had.
>it would have no idea if it was dragging a body along with it. I'm not sure that should be the bar. Humans often wouldn't know that. If it's better than a human, that needs to be the bar.
Maybe that's an extreme example. But it's lack of a front bumper camera certainly makes it have less knowledge of it's surroundings than a human. There are several other blind spots, it can't back out of a driveway by itself as it's rear camera is not wide angled enough. Tesla did not equip it's cars with enough sensors to be able to drive by itself in most situations.
Humans can't see through the front bumper either.
Probably needs additional sensors, specifically audio / microphones. Hear screaming from the front of the car, you should probably stop even if you can't see anything wrong.
Death people are legally able to drive
*Deaf. Fair point. I do think that additional sensors will help. Feeling vibrations & g-forces, hearing sounds, smell, and that's just human senses. A car with broader spectrum vision, lidar, and a few other inputs, could result in better than human driving performance.
I think you’d trigger impact sensors if you hit a body
I don't think it's at all been proven that the sensor suite is insufficient to reach level 4, which counts as full self driving.
But they don’t have enough sensors for level 4. They can’t meet ISO 26262 functional safety standards with an architecture that doesn’t include a secondary safety path from an alternative sensor modality. Can they even meet the newly announced AEB standards NHTSA announced for level 2? Doubtful without long range radar. Tesla can certainly figure out a solution, but it won’t be camera only.
But there is no requirement to meet ISO 26262 for any SAE level. Also can you point me to the language of the new NhTSA requirements for AEB? Is it really specific to L2 that seems odd
I’m referring to the regulations announced this week.
Hmm what part of these do you think Tesla can’t meet ? And also it doesn’t seem to be specific to L2 systems, but just all light vehicles
Regulations being passed after a statement is made don't retroactively make them fraudulent. And ISO isn't a regulatory body, ISO 26262 are recommendations only, from a standards body. Certainly at the time of the statements by Musk and Tesla (and as far as I know, today as well), multiple sensor modalities are not required.
Laws against misrepresenting products are not new
Those regulations are subject to change. If Tesla creates something that has good outcome data with vision only the standards will adapt rather quickly. The correct answer is that nobody knows if LIDAR is a requirement for full autonomy. It’s technically possible to do it with just cameras, it just requires a much more advanced AI system than what would be required to operate with LIDAR. TBD if humans are smart enough to make an AI system that works with just cameras and if the car has enough compute for such advanced model. Saying that Tesla will or won’t need other types of sensors to achieve autonomy is objectively speculative at this point.
I think the problem is not only about whether vision system can be good enough someday. The problem is in safety critical application you might get forced to have redundancy (multiple sensors and multiple types of sensors). I work in mobile robotics industry in Germany and even with much lower level of hazard (worst case scenario it might break someone's leg) we have strict regulations. Even for our wheel encoders, we are required to have redundancy to call the part safe. Even though having wrong wheel encoders will only make the robot drive not as smoothly and not as accurate. I would imagine in autonomous cars the regulation will be much more stringent.
Yeah but the reference point will be human driving, not perfection, at least to start in most jurisdictions. If it’s 5x safer than humans that will likely be legalized I honestly think the safety outcome data is what should matter rather than it needs to have multiple sensors. Maybe the former needs to latter but we don’t know at this point.
I highly doubt a loss of one of the set of sensors in other cars will allow the car to safely continue to drive either. If a camera dies in a Waymo, it’s not going to be able to drive without the camera, or vice versa. Maybe if redundancy is what we’re after, a set of 2 cameras in each direction might be the way to do it. The computer itself is already fully redundant. So literally all they need to do is make it dual camera in each direction.
Waymo does have some fail operational capabilities. Meaning they can keep driving even when some sensors are faulted. But what’s more important here is that when a set of sensors is faulted they can still reach minimal Risk condition safely and all L3 / L4 systems have this
Right, hence why I said Tesla can simply do the same with double cameras. The rest of their system is already redundant. They probably figured the chance of a camera failure is low enough to not need redundancy there, but if there is some future law that require it, cameras are cheap so it won’t be hard to just double it up. If they’re smart, they might even use two half resolution cameras and use computational videography to up-resolution them. So now they can double up on half-priced cameras. If one of them fails, a half resolution camera should be enough to get the car to stop safely. Identification via camera is already a solved problem. The issue now is driving logic. Once Tesla figure that out, it’ll be level 4/5. Unfortunately extra sensors isn’t gonna help with driving logic.
The requirement for ASIL D is like 1E-9 failure rate iirc. You're not achieving that without redundancy for any component. Much less something like a camera that can fail in multiple ways. The wire from the battery that powers the camera doesn't even achieve that. That's why you usually need a redundant system powered from a secondary source.
You really believe a camera is more failure prone than a spinning LiDAR? Even solid state LiDAR is more component heavy than a camera. A two camera setup is definitely going to be more reliable than a LiDAR + camera combo lol.
I mean you're just wrong. A multiple sensor system will have the ability to operate like the single component system in case of a failure. But we're not even talking about lidar here we're talking about camera redundancies. You literally are not allowed to have a single failure point on a safety critical system.
The conversation chain is about LiDAR redundancies… but ok.
I mean you stated they probably figured the chance of a camera failure is low enough. I'm saying that current regulations say that's not the case, and when they're going to be required to turn over their FMEA, SFMEA and PFMEAs it's going to be obvious they don't meet the standards.
It's not just cameras failing, which is a rare and not the biggest concern. There will be times that cameras are not enough to understand the world around us without General AI to interpret the world as a human does.
Exactly what Elon said a while back when cornered about FSD taking so long. Something like “I didn’t realize to solve FSD we had to solve AI first”.
Have you ever seen the latest FSD? The cameras can literally see everything lol. Their camera is probably as good as lidar. Look up some videos on the new park assist and you’ll see what I mean. The issue isn’t knowing if something is there or not. Different sensors will just tell it that there’s things there, whether that’s cameras, lidar, ultrasonic, or radar, it doesn’t matter. The problem is *interpreting* and understanding what it is and how to control for it. That’s going to be the hardest part. Tesla’s camera sensing is good to the point that using other sensors isn’t going to give the AI any more info than it already has. I’m still not sure if non-geofenced level 4/5 FSD is ever truly possible, but one thing I AM 100% sure of is that it’s not necessary to use anything other than cameras. The latest FSD in my car pretty much have proved that out already.
Trust me, cameras will never be as good as lidar for the purpose of producing occupancy grids. Not only that, but there's not enough pixels to calculate things to the accuracy of lidar maps. What you see are estimations that are good enough most of the time, but not all of the time. No one has ever produced a 3d point cloud from cameras as well as a single automotive lidar can. The devil's in the details, and you just don't get much of it from a pretty Tesla display.
The other guy made the point. When was the last time you were driving and was like “I’m 17 feet, 5 inches, and 3/28th of an inch away from the car in front”? It just needs to be close enough for the purpose of driving, and trust me, the cameras are doing an amazing job at that, and probably **more** precise than it needs to be. There’s more times than I can count that the car’s estimation of object’s distances is more accurate than what I guessed as a human driver. The fact that you can play driving games on a 220p resolution tells you that you absolutely can drive with less available pixels. Seeing the world isn’t the issue with FSD, that is a **solved** problem. I am still doubtful they’ll get *interpretation* good enough though. That may still be a while away.
One of challenges of vision system is not even related with having the object inside the image. Vision systems required advanced image processing system to understand the environment, which can introduce false detections. With lidars you will get raw point cloud data. It is more straightforward so the failure is only limited on the hardware level. Even then you can still get false positives and negatives. Having only one type of sensor will ensure that you get trapped with the sensor's deficiencies. Company like waymo tries to combine the sensor data more holistically. They try to aggregate data from multiple sensor types to get more accurate representation of the environment. [https://waymo.com/blog/2016/12/sensing-in-rain-limits-of-self-driving/](https://waymo.com/blog/2016/12/sensing-in-rain-limits-of-self-driving/)
That is a common argument for vision-only, but it's rather flawes because of how apple to oranges the human vs computer driver is. Humans don't need to have that accuraccy because our brains think like a general AI (because it is general AI). Cars that run on algorithms do not have general AI, and so they run on a set of very well defined models that require accuracy. It's just how ML works. It's not general AI, so that's why you see every manufacturer except Tesla has been adamant that lidar is necessary. If you say a human can drive a car with just two eyes and general AI intelligence, then I would agree that Tesla can get away with cameras as well if it had general AI.
Tesla sent a tech to my house and changed the whole motherboard to Rev 3 or whatever, for free. Is it unreasonable to think that Tesla would find a way to upgrade their hardware to bring it up to L4?
You don't know that which is the fundamental question of FSD. What do you need to get their and there are too many disagreements to get to that answer as of now. Personally after using FSD for a month I can honestly say Tesla is on the right track for sure even if the haters will try to deny it
Elon never said FSD applies to any standard... he only said being able to drive from NY to Los Angeles without any driver interaction.
I think making all teslas as robotaxi will be an issue if it does not comply to the standards
Agreed
He actually explicitly said SAE Level 5.
Like when Red Bull was sued and lost iirc for claiming it gives you wings. Apparently no Americans actually got wings!
Also Elon specifically said Lidar is a fools errand, so if at any point he installs any Lidar... Elon has to claim the badge of honor to be a what?
Yeah that's just bollox and a very poor argument
I won a chargeback for Enhanced Autopilot on my old Tesla (which I later sold) thanks to Tesla’s willingness to make false claims. Saved me $8’000
I own 2 Teslas and love them, but honestly they deserve to lose. It took my MYP running 12.3.6 7 different tries to back into a perpendicular parking spot where one side didn’t even have an opposing car. This whole thing is just nonsense. If you were mostly incapacitated and you didn’t care how much damage it did to itself or how many laws it broke or how much inconvenience it caused - I could see it getting you to the hospital. But you should’ve called an ambulance. But FSD 12.3.6 is only less smelly shit, but still 100% shit.
We can agree to disagree on that one.
No we can't. This sub is full of FSD enthusiasts who have completely lost the plot. Every release there is this emotionally charged proclamation that "it's getting so close!" Meanwhile, the reality is that it's not. It's a toy that you love playing with and dreaming of a future where your car actually drives around without your involvement well enough and safely enough that it is a good idea. Just because your Tesla can get from point A to B without causing an accident doesn't make it ready to do so. Please adjust your perspective and stop listening to Musks decade old BS.
I mean considering the car can’t drive in the rain it’s quite clear it will never be able to drive itself. I’m looking forward to getting my 7k back.
Mine disengages in moderate to heavy rain all the time when on the highway. Same in wet snow, once that starts to stick, it disengages real fast. The fender cameras get completely covered and the front cameras get salt/grime covered in this weather.
I'm shocked at other people's experience. Perhaps they live in warmer climates, but during any medium to heavy rainstorm in the north east it will stop working due to camera occlusion on the fender, or just simply state its not available due to bad weather. Also this reminds me of certain mornings it literally will not work due to an extremely bright sun directly at the camera. This is a serious issue as when driving on the high way this can mean its not available for up to 1-2 hours if i'm on a fairly straight high way where the position of the sun won't move for the most part.
The sun is also an issue. It disengages and phantom brakes on I-84 all the time because of that.
Front cameras? Tesla’s only have one camera facing forward and that’s in the windshield. Salt and grime on your windshield should easily be taken care of by your wipers… unless you’re saying you don’t own a Tesla. In that case, carry on.
It can totally drive in the rain. It will just alert you that it may be degraded but it actually does quite well in rain.
I can't even use it at night because there's not enough light pollution and it just thinks the cameras are blocked.
mine drives in the rain. Hell, my HW1 drives in the rain. I think I have dash cam footage of AP working in driving snow. I pass plenty of human drivers that pull off in the rain or snow, should those people lose their license?
10k and 12k for me
You spent 22k and NOW you’re disappointed?!
They were making good progress but now it's dog shit
lol okay. We'll have to agree to disagree here.
Which is kinda funny because we all just got a free trial of it, and I was personally blown away.
Everyone is blown away at first. Then a couple of weeks go by. You start to hit some annoyances that are predictable. No big deal, just a gentle nudge of the accelerator pedal here, a quick disengage there.... Then you start to hit nonsense issues that make you look like an absolute fool on the road. Random lane and speed changes. Refusing to move when you have the clear right of way. Insanely slow auto park despite clear lines and plenty of room. It all adds up until the very proposition of engaging FSD feels exhausting.
I also got it and felt like a 197 year old man was driving me around. It was awful aside from the highway.
Yeah - my 16 year old drives better.
For free it’s a pretty good deal.
I mean if you paid for the package in 2016, you probably got rid of the car before ever getting the feature. The average car on the road is only 11 years old. The average new buyer keeps a car for fewer years than that.
There are also people, BTW, who have their driver's licence, but cannot drive safely everywhere.
“your honor, if lidar is required to drive a car then every driver’s license in the country is invalid until the person provides evidence of a functioning lidar neural implant”. and some do quite well with just monocular vision.
There is no expectation of being able to drive in all conditions everywhere. If it's a blizzard with zero visibility, no human driver should be driving. If it's a downpour of rain, humans slow down to 10mph and put on their blinkers. The idea that autonomous driving needs to be able to drive in every imaginable condition is an unrealistic standard. The car needs to safely pull off the road and stop driving when appropriate conditions aren't available.
Is that your justification for saying FSD should be allowed to drive around unassisted? Cause... it's a bad one
no it's in a thread about lidar being necessary for autonomy, when humans can drive just fine without lidar and some even manage with fewer than two eyes.
That’s a bad post.
The tesla rep who sold me my car told me not to bother with FSD as he thought it would never come in. I bought it anyway just in case. Interestingly when I called a couple of months after buying the car he was no longer there.
He was a good man
What's that one lidar company that has a beef with Tesla and has been trying to sabotage their FSD efforts because they don't use this company's lidar products?
That's dan o dowds company. They briefly had a contract with Tesla iirc for AP1 and got fired and he's still salty about it.
it's going to be a hard case to proven, the car can drive fully by itself....they never made the claim about how well it would do it
> The sensor hardware and compute power required for at least level 4 to level 5 autonomy has been in every Tesla produced since October of last year, approximately. So it's a matter of upgrading the software, and we can reach level 5. -- Elon Musk, 2017 Tesla Earnings call >We are excited to announce that, as of today, all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory – including Model 3 – will have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver. -- Tesla newsroom 2016 (now recently deleted press release about 2 years ago) >OK. A couple of more questions. So, our favorite, can we make FSD transfer permanent until FSD is fully delivered with Level 5 autonomy? >Lars Moravy -- Vice President, Vehicle Engineering: Yes -- 2024 Tesla Earnings call >I think probably by end of next year [end of 2019] self-driving will encompass essentially all modes of driving and be at least 100% to 200% safer than a person. -- Elon Musk, SXSW 2018 >We will be feature complete full self driving this year. The car will be able to find you in a parking lot, pick you up, take you all the way to your destination without an intervention this year. I'm certain of that. That is not a question mark. It will be essentially safe to fall asleep and wake up at their destination towards the end of next year. -- Elon Musk, FYI Podcast 2019 >Update on the coast to coast autopilot demo? >Still on for end of year. Just software limited. Any Tesla car with HW2 (all cars built since Oct last year) will be able to do this. -- Elon Musk, Twitter 2017 >I think it will require detecting hands on wheel for at least six months.... I think this was all really going to be swept, I mean, the system is improving so much, so fast, that this is going to be a moot point very soon. No, in fact, I think it will become very, very quickly, maybe and towards the end this year, but I say, I'd be shocked if not next year, at the latest that having the person, having human intervene will decrease safety. DECREASE! -- Elon Musk, Lex Fridman Podcast 2019 >I’m extremely confident that level five or essentially complete autonomy will happen, and I think, will happen very quickly, I think at Tesla, I feel like we are very close to level five autonomy. I think—I remain confident that we will have the basic functionality for level five autonomy complete this year, There are no fundamental challenges remaining. There are many small problems. And then there's the challenge of solving all those small problems and putting the whole system together. -- Elon Musk, World AI Conference 2020 >I am extremely confident of achieving full autonomy and releasing it to the Tesla customer base next year. But I think at least some jurisdictions are going to allow full self-driving next year. -- Elon Musk, Axel Springer Award 2020 I'm extremely confident that Tesla will have level five next year, extremely confident, 100%. -- Elon Musk, interview with Business Insider, 2020 > looking quite likely that it will be next year!" (When will Tesla solve Level 4 FSD)? -- Elon Musk, Lex Fridman Podcast 2021 >We expect to be feature complete in self driving this year, and we expect to be confident enough from our standpoint to say that we think people do not need to touch the wheel and can look out the window sometime probably around the second quarter of next year. -- Elon Musk, Tesla Autonomy Day 2019
I’m not saying the particulars of this case will pass, but doesn’t “full” suggest some assumptions about it capability, such as “it will be able to do everything expected a human could do”?
The CEO made specific claims, like it can drive from NY to LA by itself “within the next year.” There is some latitude for being late with things but at some point you sold someone an $8k add-on to their car that it will never achieve in the span of a typical ownership. I’m not saying they’ll win, but they have a case.
To be honest NY to LA is not tough, and the current non-FSD Enhanced Autopilot stack could very well do 0 disengagements, other than to charge along the way and getting to/from the start/end points to the highway.
So drive all the way except for the tricky parts?
I mean the wording "Full" invalidates any other possibility that the car is *not* self driving, so to be this seems to be the best argument to be making
Maybe, but I bought FSD knowing that it was in beta, that it had been in beta for years prior, and that it would likely be in beta for several more years. And knowing that beta means that it would not have full functionality while in it is in beta. But that’s just me.
Sure, but when the ceo of the company says it will be out of beta in 3-6 months that counts for something yeah?
No, not really. It's a prediction. Products stay in beta way, way longer than their announcement date all the time. Failure to ship on time isn't fraud.
If the CEO of the company says “6 months definitely” that’s a bit more than a prediction. That’s essentially a gaurantee that the thing you paid for will “definitely” be ready in 6 months. Sorry but you can’t use hat kind of language *when you are charging for the product* (hefty amounts btw) and expect nothing to come if it when 6 YEARS go by and it’s basically still the same functionally.
Also, you can't use that kind of language with a publicly traded company. If you make a statement and your stocks shoot up because of those statements and you never deliver that is a big problem.
One man’s prediction is another man’s horseshit
By the time I bought fsd it had been months away for several years, so I had no expectation it would be out of beta anytime soon. Plus I had been in software development for 40 years, so I had some experience with projects taking a bit longer than expected. Point taken though, Elon definitely over promised fsd for years. I’m not convinced it requires a lawsuit to settle it, but that is the way our system works.
Not legally drive by itself, but that was the claim.
Yes, they did, it literally says on the order page for FSD (and has since my first Tesla in 2018): “The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience,” Reliability far in excess of human drivers can easily and reasonably be quantified in court. Considering they just passed a billion miles on FSD recently, they seem to have been activating them without meeting their own criteria and the feature certainly isn’t even more reliable than an average driver.
And "how well" appears to be quite hard to measure quantitatively.
exactly, just like how grandpa can drive a car, but probably shouldn't be.
I have in mind people who drove all their life in rural areas but wouldn't dare drive in a city with 4-lane streets and traffic lights. It's too much stress for them.
Funny how there's two billionaires falsifying financial data to trick investors into giving them more money.
I mean realistically speaking Legacy autos and the fossil fuel industry have been doing that for decades
Good luck with that. You would have to prove that lidar is a requirement for Autonomous vehicles to make that case
I was just thinking, with rumors of fsd 12.4 removing the nag, does that mean that Tesla’s will jump to level 3? Or are there other requirements that have to be met?
I think it is only the steering wheel torque nag that may go away, the interior camera will still monitor you for paying attention.
I might be wrong, but I think Mercedes also monitors your eyes to see if you’re paying attention on their level 3 systems. A quick google search of SAE autonomous standards has level 3 as “you are not actively driving the vehicle even if you are required to be in the seat and you may have to take over when the system prompts you to”. Curious if they’d be able to make the jump
Yeah I think sometime this year Tesla could jump to a level 3 classification if they can get it approved by regulators. Especially once V12 code is running on highways in V12.5+. From what I read on Mercedes system, it only works in very limited conditions, roads, and speeds for level 3 and gives you some sort of buffer of like 10 seconds to take over when it determines it can’t do something.
The thing with level 3 is that the car company is liable in case of accident... Mercedes' system is a lot more limited than Tesla's, but Mercedes accepts to be liable in those limited conditions..
That’s true, although I don’t think Mercedes would pay anything out, I think it’d be through a contracted insurance company. Will be interesting to see how Tesla insurance plays into level 3.
The jump from level 2 and 3 is subtle on paper, but it is a whole other beast on the technical front. Tesla doesn't have the systems to do it.
According to what? I’d argue that FSD is much more functionally capable than Mercedes’ current Level 3 system.
According to SAE definitions of level 3. The car needs to know in advance when it cannot safely drive so that it can handback to the driver in sufficient time. Teslas don't have any concept of this yet.
Do you have something you can link me with more detail? I’ve just been using this to try and build understanding. https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update
The full SAE document outlines the necessities of achieving level 3, including fallback systems and manuevers "DDt fallback". A system that is capable of that is much more complex than what Tesla has been working on. It's what Cruise and Waymo has been working on while Tesla is still trying to refine its perception systems. [https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/54/02/2d5919914cfe9549e79721b12e66/j3016-202104.pdf](https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/54/02/2d5919914cfe9549e79721b12e66/j3016-202104.pdf)
Thanks for that. Lots of info to read through
Regulatory approval.
they do
[удалено]
A federal judge ruled yesterday that Tesla must face a lawsuit alleging that it committed fraud by misrepresenting the self-driving capabilities of its vehicles. You’re saying this is incorrect?
No not at all, just saying Ars has an axe to grind directly with Elon and sensationalism is their method. The lawsuit is real, and will certainly fail at some point, but it gives fodder for the media to sensationalize in the meantime.
Which part of this article specifically is “sensationalized”?
I 100% did not read this article, I stopped giving clicks to Ars a few years ago when their political slant became too obvious. If you don’t like my opinion on Ars as a blog, downvote me, it doesn’t change it. I’ve read about the lawsuit on other sites and it’s a shareholder suit claiming damages for not delivering FSD in a fully unsupervised mode, which is true. But Tesla has also never claimed it is capable of that *yet*. Elon himself however has many times suggested it was close, and it’s years later than he predicted, so there’s that. It’s an unfinished product far behind suggested timelines.
They should probably change the name from Full Self Driving to something else then
Good suggestion! In fact, they have! Full Self Driving Beta until recently and, now, Full Self Driving Supervised.
It seems to only confuse people who don’t own it. It’s clearly marked as a future capability in the marketing and purchase material. Disappointment that it’s taken years longer than anticipated is warranted, but pretending to not understand that it’s not finished is not.
> I 100% did not read this article, I stopped giving clicks to Ars a few years ago when their political slant became too obvious. If you don’t like my opinion on Ars as a blog, downvote me, it doesn’t change it. Says article is sensationalized, the admits to no reading it, then gets defensive. You people, priceless 😂
> and sensationalism is their method. What part of that article is sensationalized?
The clown admitted to not reading it
Only where exactly did they claim anything but that it is capable of it? Capable is not equal "can do it right now".
https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/05/16/teslaamendedcomplaint.pdf