A thread to discuss self-driving cars and other vehicles. No politics, please.
Technology, commercial aspects, legal considerations and marketing are all on-topic.
- Companies (e.g. Tesla Inc.) are only on-topic when discussing their self-driving products and research, not their wider activities. The exception is when those wider activities directly impact (or are impacted by) their other business areas - e.g. if self-driving car development is cut back due to losses in another part of the business.
- Technology that's not directly related to self-driving vehicles is off-topic unless you're discussing how it might be used for them in future.
- If we're talking about individuals here, that should only be because they've said or done something directly relevant to the topic. Specifically, posts about Tesla do not automatically need to mention Elon Musk. And Musk's views, politics and personal life are firmly off-topic unless you can somehow show that they're relevant to self-driving vehicles.
Cadillac plans to release a scaled back, more simple version of similar technology by 2015 - what they call "Super Cruise", which isn't total self-driving, but does let you relax on highways. It positions your car in the exact center of a lane, slows down or speeds up as necessary, and is said to be meant for ideal driving conditions (I'm guessing that means ideal weather, no rain or snow, etc.).
I am looking forward to such tech. If enough people prefer to drive this way, and the technology works reliably, it could result in safer roads with fewer accidents. Another possibility is that, using GPS and maybe the ability to know ahead of time which roads are most clogged, they can find the quickest route from place to place.
On the other hand, hacking could be a real concern, and I hope it doesn't become a serious threat. It's looking like we're living more and more like those sci-fi Everything Is Online worlds depicted in fiction for a long time.
(Mod edited to replace original post)
Edited by Mrph1 on Mar 29th 2024 at 4:19:56 PM
Lost in Space
Bear in mind that there are two different complaints here. The first is about the use of Tesla's released Autopilot and Full Self Driving features, which are available to all owners of Tesla vehicles for an additional charge.
If the "Autopilot" moniker is deceptive, then airplanes need to stop using it too. Everyone understands from common usage that it is not a replacement for an attentive human. The only people who don't are attention-seekers trying to profit from the supposed ambiguity. Sure, we can't rule out human stupidity, like the anecdotes of people who thought that "cruise control" let them take a nap while the car drives, but that goes into a much broader debate.
"Full Self Driving" is aspirational and festooned with safety warnings. You are told when buying it that it's not an autonomous system, you are warned when activating it that it is not an autonomous system, and it reminds you to maintain control while in use.
There is a reasonable concern that Tesla is not taking adequate measures to ensure that drivers are in fact paying attention. It seems as if this may be addressed to some extent in the FSD Beta program, which uses the in-vehicle camera to monitor driver attention as well as steering wheel inputs. The concern expressed by the IIHS over speed limits, however, is misleading to the point of being intentionally deceptive.
Of course, the killer argument is that Tesla's own data show that the use of Autopilot and FSD correspond to increased statistical safety even in their current state as driver-assist systems.
The complaint about FSD Beta — the new version of the software that is intended to develop into a Level 5 solution — is absurd. Tesla is being extremely careful with the release of this package.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 18th 2021 at 10:08:59 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I’d assume that the process to get a pilot’s licence explains what autopilot is for an aircraft, if the process to get a driving licence did the same then the comparison would be valid, but from what you’ve said before you just get handed driving license in the US, there’s no real training or testing.
Hell, can you even privately get an airplane with Autopilot easily? I’ve no idea if Autopilot is a thing outside of commercial aircraft.
It may be meeting your safety standards, but you’ll find there aren’t many sectors where you can engage in safety testing on a new product by having customers do the testing for you. You’re meant to hire trained testers to do the testing.
Tesla seems to be the only one, outside of the video-game industry, that’s managing to get away with having customers do product testing for them.
Edited by Silasw on Mar 18th 2021 at 2:21:17 PM
Lost in Space
Self-driving cars can't be tested in laboratories. They need real-world, real-driver training. There's just no way to work around this requirement.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Sure, so use trained and qualified testing drivers, rather than members of the public.
The thing is that’s expensive, very expensive.
Lost in Space
Or you can engage members of the public in being enthusiastic about representing the company and its products, applying social pressure to be responsible. Look at all the videos being put out by people every time a new software release comes out. When have you ever seen such intense enthusiasm and engagement with a driving product? Nobody else is doing this.
It's very similar to how Tesla doesn't spend money on advertising and doesn't employ a PR team. It's a very different approach to what people are used to, so naturally draws skepticism.
Edited to add: Hiring engineering drivers doesn't actually help, if we look at how many times that failed for other companies.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 18th 2021 at 10:32:25 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Enthusiasm doesn’t make something safe, if anything it can reduce safety due to people getting over-hyped. As for social pressure to ensure safety, that works on a lot of things, but it needs proper grounding. If Tesla wants to require testers to be part of clubs/organisations that push a culture of road safety then that’s all a possible way or working.
If the data indicates that Tesla’s public-beta drivers have the same accident/incident levels as trained testing drivers under the same conditions, then that would carry a lot of weight. Or it would indicate that there’s a serious problem with the quality of vehicle testing drivers, but that would also make the case that what Tesla is doing isn’t unusually dangerous.
Edited by Silasw on Mar 18th 2021 at 2:42:05 PM
Lost in Space
Enthusiasm in this case combines with brand engagement to mean that drivers are motivated to use Autopilot safely and not do stupid things. Of course, you can't control people completely, which is at the center of the NTSB complaint.
Do you not recall the stories about Uber and Waymo engineering drivers falling asleep or playing games while they were supposed to be supervising the cars?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I’m certain that there are anecdotal stories, what I’m asking for is actual data.
Lost in Space
I have no idea if those companies released the complete data set publicly. I know that Uber used inattentiveness as a reason for the cancellation of their robo-taxi development program after one of their vehicles struck and killed a pedestrian.
The real problem behind the NTSB complaints and skepticism in general is that all of the reports of serious problems are anecdotal. Tesla will obviously get the lion's share because it has more cars on the road equipped for self-driving — and because parts of the media have hate boners to work out. However, with over a million vehicles on the road, you'd think there would be more such reports if it were a frequent occurrence.
Edit: Tesla does release a quarterly safety report but it's aggregated. We don't have any insight into the details. It has every reason to maintain those details, however, because it will need to share them with the NHTSA in order to get regulatory approval to upgrade the status of Tesla FSD.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 18th 2021 at 11:18:00 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Jupiterian Local
Releasing the safety data is literally all that the NTSB is asking for. They're asking the NHTSA to 1) clarify a standard, unified ruleset for autonomous driving systems, and 2) require companies with self-driving programs to report safety data. That's it. They're not telling Tesla to stop doing public betas, they're not insisting that the Autopilot or Full Self-Driving branding be changed, they're not demanding that Elon Musk personally deliver them delicious candy and a free pony.
They're saying "we have some concerns, but right now they're theoretical because we don't have the data. We want safety data reporting to be mandatory, so we will have the data, and then we can make data-based decisions."
This isn't a huge ask.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Lost in Space
If that's all the NTSB wants, I'm fine with it. Transparency is preferred.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Lost in Space
Tesla is releasing a new feature in the upcoming V11 software package. This feature, called "Smart Shift", allows the vehicle to determine the correct shifter setting (Park, Drive, Neutral, Reverse) automatically using environmental context. It will accompany the removal of the gear stalk on its refreshed Model S and X vehicles. We do not know if the feature will be made available to Model 3 and Y or pre-refresh S/X.
The shift setting can be overridden with a simple touchscreen control. Teslarati covers this
along with a video preview. Social media reaction is mixed.
This feels like it's intended as a move towards full autonomy: the gradual removal of physical controls in favor of automated ones.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 24th 2021 at 3:48:52 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Lost in Space
Self-driving cars are useful in more ways than one. Tesla can apparently access the autonomous features of your car to help repossess it if you default. Soon, your car may be able to drive itself back to the seller in these situations.
Figure of Hourai
I imagine the first we'll hear about this is leaving someone completely stranded because of the timing.
Avatar Source
Lost in Space
Wouldn't be the first time a repo did that...
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Figure of Hourai
Normally if you're not somewhere it would be a bit harder to repossess the car specifically.
Avatar Source
Lost in Space
Teslarati: Tesla Full Self-Driving subscription gets definitive release date from Elon Musk
With the caveat that his promises on specific dates are not always accurate, Elon Musk has stated and then reiterated that the Tesla FSD subscription option will be released in May 2021. Pricing is still not announced, but if one takes the current cash purchase price of $10,000 and spreads that over five years with a convenience markup, we would expect it to come in at between $150 and 200 per month.
FSD Beta V9 is similarly expected to launch in May although this is less certain and depends on the progress of testing. With this update, all drivers who purchased the FSD package will be able to opt into the beta program.
Edited by Fighteer on Apr 15th 2021 at 9:17:42 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Figure of Hourai
The subscription is being offered before it's been made legal...?
Avatar Source
Lost in Space
Not sure what you mean. Tesla owners who purchase Full Self-Driving get access to the currently deployed FSD package which includes highway navigation, Smart Summon, and limited city driving features such as traffic control recognition. The subscription service will give access to these same features but for a monthly price rather than an up-front price. Nothing else changes.
FSD Beta has nothing to do with the subscription; it is a separate program made available to select FSD users by invitation only. It is testing the "4D" rewrite of the software that we have been discussing. Elon has said that with version 9 of the beta software, an opt-in button will be added for all drivers who own (or suscribe to) FSD allowing them to participate in the beta. This is expected to also be released in May but is not guaranteed.
To be clear, Tesla's autonomy software comes in three different packages:
- Basic Autopilot, available with all Tesla vehicles, offers ADAS features such as lane following and speed keeping. It does not allow navigation or city driving.
- Full Self-Driving, available as a paid upgrade, provides highway navigation, Smart Summon, and limited city driving features.
- FSD Beta, available (currently) only to selected Full Self-Driving customers, provides an end-to-end package that should be able to handle most driving situations without intervention.
All of these are currently offered and regulated as Level 2 systems, meaning the driver is expected to be in control of / supervising the vehicle at all times. FSD Beta has the capability to go up to Level 5, per Elon, but is not there yet.
Edited by Fighteer on Apr 15th 2021 at 9:41:12 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Figure of Hourai
So it's once again selling something with a name that's incorrect.
Avatar Source
Lost in Space
If that's the hill you want to die on, be my guest.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Figure of Hourai
Right, because if I make that mistake, I shouldn't conclude that other people will also make that mistake or consider the importance of truth in advertising laws.
Because using a not misleading name is too much to ask of a company worth billions.
Avatar Source
Lost in Space
It's not enough to raise the potential for confusion; you must provide actual evidence.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Figure of Hourai
Are we to assume that I am the only person in the world who's ever going to see "Tesla is going to start selling subscriptions to its Full Self Driving service" and think that this means full self-driving? You're basically asking that I prove this conversation has happened.
Avatar Source
Ultimately that comes down to whether you think the burden of proof should be on the regulator to prove that the product is unsafe, or the manufacturer to prove that the product is safe. The actual news being reported on
is that the NTSB (who investigate crashes) is calling on the NHTSA (which regulates car manufacturers) to require more oversight of driver-assistance features.
These requirements would apply to all car manufacturers, it would just hit Tesla hardest because Tesla is pushing the envelope the most — no one else is using customers on public roads as self-described beta testers. Here's the money quote:
They're also expressing concerns that self-driving systems can be activated in circumstances where they're not intended to be used (which has obvious safety concerns) and frequently do a poor job of monitoring driver attention, leading to crashes that the driver could have prevented if they were using the system as intended. Adding to that is Tesla's "autopilot" and "full self-driving" branding, both of which are inaccurate and potentially dangerously misleading.
Given that all of these things are concerns I've also expressed in the past, I'd say the complaint seems pretty goddamn reasonable to me. Hell, no one's even say that Tesla shouldn't be able to do what they're doing, only that there should be clearer rules and more reporting requirements. These are very basic steps to ensure public and consumer safety, not a Big Government vendetta against self-driving cars generally and Tesla specifically.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.