Questions are growing? Haven’t they been out already for fucking years??
Tesla keeps promising things are fixed in the next update, then the next update, and so on. I don’t think Tealas have the proper sensors to avoid collisions and their algorithms don’t think like an attentive driver does.
Everybody knows that tesla sacrificed lidar sensors with cameras because it was cheaper. Yes, lidar can do it easily
It’s not seeing that’s the problem. It’s what to do with the information about what you see.
It’s both. Imagine being half blind flying a jet and you don’t understand what the instruments do.
That’s a typical Tesla engineer these days. (He’s fired the whole team at least twice now. The guys that are left are the most inept I desperately need a job engineers out there).
I’ve been questioning it since the day Mushk said “We don’t need fancy pants LiDAR, regular cameras are all you need!”
As if a safety critical system shouldn’t have backups or alternative sensors for verifying shit
Also things like adverse weather conditions exist, and I think sometimes the sun goes out.
Yes and because cams see so well in rain and fog 😅
That, and every time I see video from one somehow the inbuilt cameras on a Tesla produce worse picture quality than a $30 Amazon dashcam. And why do they tint everything brown?
Yes growing. They were birthed years ago, and Elon has done his best to nurture them so they grow big and strong
The company has cautioned that cars equipped with the system cannot actually drive themselves and that motorists must be ready at all times to intervene if necessary.
This describes a level 2 system…
And in less than two months, the company is scheduled to unveil a vehicle built expressly to be a robotaxi.
…but this would require a level 4 system.
“It’s not even close, and it’s not going to be next year,” said Michael Brooks, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety.
And so I tend to agree, fully.
This will be the reason Tesla falls behind the rest of the automotive industry, wasting money on vanity projects instead of developing better vehicles.
The 3, Y, and the huge number of Chinese EVs being sold around the world have shown there is a huge market for affordable, practical electric vehicles, and what are they developing? A vehicle that won’t be able to fulfill it’s intended role for a decade almost everywhere.
When I see EVs (southern Netherlands) they are mostly model S or non-Teslas from mostly VW. Autonomous vehicles aren’t even allowed here AFAIK.
Edit: I am agreeing with you, for clarity’s sake.
My understanding is that the only places in the world where self-driving vehicles are actually legal is the UK and weirdly Tehran or something very odd like that.
But that’s all just a technicality, most jurisdictions say you can’t have them because we haven’t verified their safety. The UK says you can have them but only in very limited testing scenarios (limited speed, limited to certain roads in a mapped area). But they both effectively amount to the same thing.
I think the focus on AI is what will be the problem. Sure, AI is cool, and sure you need advances for self-driving, but you’re a car manufacturer and can’t neglect car manufacturing
Thing is, I quite like the idea of a self driving car. I do whitewater kayaking, and I’d love to be able to do a trip and have my car meet me at the end.
It’s becoming increasingly obvious this isn’t happening any time soon though, and developing a vehicle that is totally reliant on the technology doesn’t seem like a smart idea.
It’s possible just at the outside that one of the Waymo autonomous taxis could pull it off, but they rely on that giant sensor lump on the roof so you’d have nowhere to put your boat…
If I can leave the boat unattended, I could just take a taxi back to the start of the trip.
The main issue is my vehicle is already set up to carry all my gear, so a taxi of any type is far less convenient.
All that stuff is what justifies Tesla being treated as a Tech Stock rather than an Automotive Stock and hence having Stock Prices which are 10x or 20x what an auto-maker with similar Revenue and Margins would have.
Dropping the techno-bollocks that underpins their “we’re disrupting the Auto industry with our Technology and will become the Google of cars” story and just focusing on being good at making electric cars would mean loosing the huge “we’re a Tech Stock” premium that keeps Tech companies’ stock prices high even when they’re loosing money (the valuations are justified by investors with the expectation that they will one day dominate entire markets, like Google or Apple), and hence accepting their stock falling 90%, from Uber style valuations to Ford style valuations.
I doubt shareholders will ever accept that, hence I expect Tesla will just keep “faking until you make it” all the while getting farther and farther away from making it, until eventually they crash far harder (possibly even cease to exist in the next decade or two) than it would happen if they just settled down to be just another auto-maker. (In my mind I have the image of the Coyote from Road-Runner running out of track, going over the cliff and keeping on running until noticing he’s not running on ground anymore and is high up in the air)
They were a tech company because they developed cars with features and technology no one else ever had. The stock stayed too high because they were delivery 50%+ growth every year and legacy manufacturers weren’t even trying to compete. The stock was truly excessive because of a long term roadmap to bring the future into present reality. Funding for ai was part of the competitive advantage, when it was used to add features to their cars.
AI for its own sake is not a good place to be and will only suck attention and funding from the core business
Humanoid robotics may be a vision of the future and I’m excited that someone will make that attempt, but it has nothing to do with cars. It’s a distraction of funding and attention at the expense of the core business
Previously Musk developed a portfolio of companies, so each can go for their own attempts at the future with less impact on each other. It’s just basic business sense. For example, a solar company could go bankrupt without affecting a car company. Now he’s taking a leap of fantasy and I don’t see any sign of the solid technical base other of his companies started with, and he’s doing it as part of a company that had been succeeding
Electric cars is an incredibly old Tech (older than ICE, even), since the very first cars invented were electric.
Tesla were just updating an old tech and trying to make it viable (in which they succeeded), by using modern batteries and electric motors instead of what was used in the original EVs.
The innovative Tech stuff was things like automated parking and automated driving. I don’t think integrating what’s basically a tablet on a car dashboard counts as innovative Tech - it’s the same kind of thing makers of “Smart” Fridges were doing - grab old tech, put a touch screen on it and call it high tech.
Without the actual high tech part around automated driving, Tesla is just a company that started in the market for car manufacturing with a strategy of carving out a new market segment by updating to the XXI century a technology from the XIX century that is now cheaper to run and adresses the Ecological concerns of many people - quite a smart and in some ways innovative business strategy but it makes them no more a Tech company than Mercedes-Benz is a Tech company for having invented Electronic Fuel Injection or my local supermarket is a Tech company because they have a smartphone customer loyalty app - merelly using existing Tech, integrating new Tech that somebody else invented with old Tech or even inventing new electronic parts for a specific domain is not what makes a Tech company, IMHO.
That said, the Stock Market will believe any old bollocks and the Startup World has never been this fraudulent (and I say this having been an insider) so you can pass pretty much anything that uses Tech in non-innovative ways as a Tech Company - I mean Glovo is deemed a Tech Company even though their business is basically a booked express delivery business that uses a smartphone app and has some backend integration with sellers - a new combination of existing things, not innovation.
Parking assist is incredibly old: Toyotas had it 1999. You can get it off the shelf from Bosch.
Should even be legal to install on your own, given that it’s only steering the car, not operating throttle or brake.
Are you actually trying to says Tesla is no real technology improvement over done 1890s electric salon? I want what you’re smoking
Improving an existing technology using modern components is an “improvement” but is not especially “innovative” and not at all any kind of unique breakthrough - it’s Tech use, not Tech making.
Maybe because I’ve spent most of my life working at or near the bleeding edge of Technology I don’t find them especially innovative in Tech except for the self-driving stuff: what they did that was impressive was in the sphere of business strategy and they seem to have run with just that for too long and not pivoted when they should’ve.
That said I can understand that people holding shares is TSLA would be scared shitless about Tesla not being treated anymore as a Tech company by the stockmarket, and hence desperately try to argue that Tesla is a Tech company that makes cars rather than a car company that uses Tech like all the other carmakers.
If you want to be the google of cars you shouldn’t be building cars, but become Bosch.
Aren’t level 4 systems still illegal in the US anyway? I remember Volkswagen holding off on a minibus due to this limitation when they managed to create a working proof of concept 8ish years ago
My understanding is that they’re not illegal in so much as they would have to be proven to actually work. Since no one’s ever been able to do this to the satisfaction of the regulators effectively self-driving cars are illegal.
We have Tesla’s on the road anyway, so I don’t quite understand how that works.
They are only effectively illegal right up until they’re not. If a company came up with a genuinely self-driving vehicle my understanding is that it would be authorized but they would have to actually demonstrate it, and that’s possibly more than the corporations really want to take on at the moment.
Presumably being second to market is the more cost-effective option so everyone’s holding off until someone does it first.
We have Tesla’s on the road anyway, so I don’t quite understand how that works.
The feature marketed as “Full Self-Drivinng” is qualified as a beta feature undergoing test and that it requires a human to be in control at all times. It also makes at least some effort to ensure a human actually is paying attention.
You could certainly quibble that maybe it’s not obvious to all, but it is there.
Also I believe the human sensing was much easier to trick until last fall. But if you have to go out of your way to trick it, how can you claim you didn’t know it wanted a human in control?
That makes sense. The VW I’m thinking of may have been level 3 (trying to remember autonomous driving levels off the top of my head so don’t quote me on this), as I believe it needed guidance from on-road infrastructure to double check safety issues, which would have obviously been too much hassle for the US.
The proof of concept was miles ahead of Tesla has ever been, though, so it’s unfortunate that we can’t be bothered to add some sensors to the road
They are only effectively illegal right up until they’re not.
Well for Level 4, installation of human-controllable steering wheels and pedals are optional, and there isn’t a system for demanding the human take over at any given time. So in a sense, a street-legal level 4 car will need to be certified before it takes the road, because it simply won’t necessarily have functionality that even gives a human the opportunity to drive.
Top end Mercedes are lvl 3.
Aren’t level 4 systems still illegal in the US anyway?
How can something that does not exist be illegal?
By creating regulations that apply to the creation of those things? Level 1 AVs exist and as such regulations exist for AVs. These regulations apply to level 4 AVs despite being mostly theoretical.
The other commenter in this thread basically already answered this as well by talking about how manufacturers need to prove the safety of it before it can be green it.
Also this seems to very much be them suffering from the 90/10 problem that some many software projects suffer from: you can do 90% of the work with 10% of the effort but that also means it takes 90% of the work to do the other 10%.
Earlier people from the outside perceived Tesla as being ahead of everybody else on this because they just started before just about everybody else, were riding the easy part of the curve were you’re constant delivering improvements because you’re just tackling the easy bits, and they were probably even doing a rush job and taking shortcuts to maintain that apperarence of being ahead of the rest because that maintained an appeareance of Tesla as a Tech Stock rather than an Auto Industry Stock, hence with market valuations 10x or 20x higher than they would others which meant sky-high Tesla Stock Prices justified by how “technologically ahead” they were in a “key future technology” - the company was just executing a typical conman strategy of looking like they were making it in the hope that their early-mover status and the increasing investor funding that strategy pulls in would allow them to actually make it before everybody else or at least with a larger installed base, similarly to how Theranos was doing only unlike that company Tesla did just the right balance of deceit and reality to just be on the right side of the Laws for Fraud.
Tech companies absolutelly can get away with doing this during the early and easy parts of the project because for non-experts it looks like they’re doing fast progress - which is why Startups nowadays (which is an Era of way more bullshitty and even fraud in the Industry than, say, pre-2000) commonly do things exactly like this - but then they reach the hard part, progress speed naturaly goes down a lot (the project transitions from the 90%-results/10%-work speed to the 10/90% one) plus all the the early shortcuts (a.k.a. Technical Debt) come due to be paid for: “out of control car careening down the hill” meet “concrete wall”.
Finally, I wouldn’t at all be surprised if they’re stuck down a dead-end for the technology which is the wrong way to reach level 4 and have to go back and redo much if not most of that work they did as a rush job to keep impressing investors and ill-informed customers with how “ahead of the pack” the were. Under the leadership of Musk I suspect that they will never be able to reach level 4.
Under the leadership of Musk I suspect that they will never be able to reach level 4.
Don’t know if he even wants to go up to level 3.
As long as he can sell these level 2 systems and tell people these were real robotaxis :)
“And they are sooo extremely safe. Just look at our statistics!” ;)
Tesla’s Full Self Driving does not exist. If it did, it would be used in the ridiculous loop they built in Vegas which is literally like 10% of the complexity of driving in a real road… yet it is not even good enough to be piloted there.
Tesla’s biggest issue is Musk.
Tesla held a commanding lead over the other automakers in the self-driving segment a few years ago. Now they’ve all mostly caught up thanks to Musk’s unhinged firings. Tesla lost some of its best talent for no other reason than not wanting to work for an egomaniacal billionaire nut job.
Tesla needs to fire Musk before he runs it into the ground just like he’s done to Twitter.
They’re only ahead of everyone else because they were prepared to release a product that was untested and quite possibly unsafe, whereas the other car manufacturers realized that would be detrimental to their business, both in terms of reputation, and the inevitable lawsuits. Tesla just does whatever though.
other car manufacturers realized that would be detrimental to their business
Ummm do they? I don’t care enough about cars to remember the details, but I’m sure I’ve heard some controversies about safety for at least a couple of brands
All the other self-driving cars are still very limited in their interactions with the real world. Only allowed in very limited locations and on predefined routes.
Tesla is the only people running self-driving car tech in the wild as far as I’m aware.
Level 4 exists in the form of Waymo, who operate on roads with shoddy regulations (random US municipalities), so probably not proper Level 4. Also exists in Japan, which does have proper regulation but from what I know it’s still a pilot.
Level 3, conditional automation, is becoming quite standard in the upper market segment. Things like traffic jam assist: You can actually take your hands off the wheel and eyes off the road, when traffic clears up the car will alert the driver to take over again, or, that failing, pull over on the shoulder and presumably call emergency services.
Tesla’s stuff is Level 2, needing constant monitoring by the driver.
This times 50x with SpaceX. There’s ample justification to nationalize it at this point with Musk’s erratic behavior.
SpaceX still has the benefit of being run by someone who is at least somewhat less unhinged (shotwell)
Well, and neurolink… It is so fascinating but every time musk starts talking again all the hype is lost with all the BS he is talking…
Tesla has never, ever, had anything remotely resembling a lead in autonomous vehicles. The actual AV industry doesn’t consider them part of it.
Yes to fuck musk, but also…
“Commanding lead” equals other manufacturers also didn’t have a functioning feature (and still don’t now).
Because they weren’t willing to open themselves up to the lawsuits for rushing a half baked autonomous driving function. Their systems likely work just as well as Tesla’s, which is why they wont advertise it as full self driving because it kills people.
Tech bros underestimating the complexity of real life yet again
Is the self driving in the room with us right now?
Shhhh! I accidentally opened this thread while my phone was connected and EVERYTHING IS FINE RECALCULATING ROUTE.
It’s not safe
Humans are not safe. 40k of them get killed in vehicle accidents every year in the US alone. Self driving doesn’t need to be flawless. It only needs to be safer. If perfection is the only thing we’ll settle for then that’ll cost us hundreds of thousands, if not millions of more lives untill we get there.
If we replaced every vehicle on US roads with self driving cars that were twice as safe of an driver as average human is, there would still be 50 deaths every single day. That’s 50 daily news articles on Lemmy about how “not safe” self driving cars are despite them saving additional 20k lives every year.
There is no independently verified data that shows Tesla self driving is actually better than humans.
I never claimed it is.
Yes you did: https://lemmy.ml/post/19661763/13303063
You should stop lying.
That was posted after replying to you and I’m making an entirely different claim there. Half as good as a human driver =/= twice as good as human. It’s also just my opinion, not a factual statement, only what I believe to be true.
Not a single lie was told.
Let us know when it even gets to half as good as a human.
The Tesla ones don’t use lidar and seem pretty shotty, when I was in Tempe I took a Waymo on 2 occasions, and that was better than the majority of drivers I have ridden with. Not perfect though, it seemed to mostly struggle with sub 5 mph tight spaced things in parking lots. (It would stop then go again if there was any chance something might jump in front of the car, where a human would assume a person wouldn’t do that). Understandable though, as I have watched kids do it
About a year ago probably. Humans suck at driving so that’s a low bar to reach.
Citation desired.
It’s not a fact, but my opinion which I cannot prove any more than you can disprove.
but guyz musko said tesla is an ai company now
/s
Honestly there’s so much shit about Tesla’s software on the Internet. I own a model y with “FSD” and I can confidently say that the current version (12.5.3) is a 90% solution. Is it perfect? No. Can it do everything? No. Can it drive me to work and back, to the grocery store, and whatever else I need without me intervening? Yes it can, and has no issues 90% of the time. Obviously for it to be considered level 5 or whatever it needs to work 99.999% of the time, but it’s good enough right now for me to not only use it regularly, but to also enjoy using it.
It’s an awesome piece of software and it still blows my mind to watch my car drive me around. We are living in the future.
I recently rode in a Tesla on FSD for over 26 hours of freeway travel. It was flawless the entire time.
On city streets? 90% was about right. It once took too sharp of a turn at a double right turn and spooked the driver next to us (although it didn’t cross into their lane, just got close), and another time decided to only change lanes halfway into the left turn lane.
I agree that it needs to be near 100% on city streets before it’s ready for launch because that 10% difference is HUGE when it comes to safety. If their “level 5” taxi isn’t using some vastly improved software, it needs to be kept off the street.
Same. I love my FSD and I’ve watched it go from 80% a few years ago to around 95% now.
To every even slightly educated person on the matter it’s immediately obvious that the majority of people commenting on these threads don’t have up-to-date information about how far FSD has come and their opinions are based on how bad it used to be and / or how bad they wish it was.
Everyone is free to go to YouTube and watch videos of people intentionally pushing the limits of this system. Like you said; it’s not flawless, but damn it’s good.
So funny that all the musk brigaders on here, in full force, can only collectively muster 4 downvotes…
You are the wet farts of humanity.
I don’t even want to turn on the speed limiter because I’m getting random fantom breaking, it’s really infuriating.
YouTube videos of FSD make it seem way better than it used to be (if they’re real) and it’s surprising that no one was paying attention until now.
There was an story a while back where it was discovered that Tesla focuses their efforts on the routes taken by creators (and other influencial people), to intentionally make self driving look better than it is.
I have it and it is legitimately a great driver aid. But you need to understand its limitations to use it safely. It’s a really awkward place to live in, because I get an immense amount of value out of it, but I would not just throw my mother in the car and trust her to use it safely.
I’m considering buying one but lately I’ve been thinking about maybe getting a Mustang because the BlueCruise seems more honest. However, Ford doesn’t seem super committed to electric and it’s all hard to justify when my Honda just won’t die.
Absolutely a Mach E over a Tesla.
Blue Cruise is legit as well though significantly more limited than FSD, and Ford is unlikely to push new updates the way Tesla does.
I suppose the ones where people die are never uploadet.
But other than that, feel free to judge on anecdotal data.
At least they have it. It’s incredible to see videos of the FSD on highways, and Waymo robot taxis in the USA.
I wish we had technology in Europe.
I wish we had technology in Europe.
European cars are better. They just leave away the bragging.
