Exactly. The technical argument about capabilities is largely settled at this point. Vision won, LiDAR didn't "lose", but it's clearly not any better. Yet every time the subject comes up we rehash the same arguments from 2020/21 as if the evidence of the last ~billion miles (or whatever) of road testing doesn't exist. The crashes didn't show up. The bodies aren't there. The disaster didn't happen. The product is "safe" for whatever reasonable definition you want to pick.
And to be clear, my sense is the same: FSD microdriving at this point is better than mine, interventions are about planning and intersection recognition. It'll be slow to take turns sometimes, it'll be in the wrong lane to prepare for a turn, stuff like that.
Vision didn't "win" in any way, shape, or form. The only products on the road that offer actual self driving don't rely on vision only, they have vision + lidar + other sensors.
Teslas are not "self driving", they don't allow you in any way to rely on the car alone, for any length of time, to drive itself: it's the drivers who are preventing accidents, not Tesla's FSD. When drivers of these vehicles lose attention, accidents do happen and people have died.
But they didn't hold up. There are literally two orders of magnitude more vehicle-miles driven under FSD now than there were then, and there's absolutely no data showing a safety effect above the noise floor. Your argument is non-falsifiable nonsense, basically. You can continue making it forever, but that doesn't make it right.
There are exactly 0 miles of FSD driven by the public without constant attention from a driver keeping their hand on the wheel. There are disengagements of FSD in virtually every trip, where the driver feels that they need to intervene or the car would do something wrong. The safety record of FSD is basically due to the human drivers, not the AI. Tesla themselves don't have any confidence that the car can drive without constant human attention.
This is in contrast to Waymo and Mercedes, where the car actually drives itself, using both vision and other sensors, and the driver can actually disengage.
Again, non-falsifiable so I can't argue. Good trick. My car still drives me around every day and no one is crashing, so I guess everyone wins. I have an amazing supercar and you don't need to feel wrong about it.
Do you take your hands off the wheel? Do you take out a book and read it? If not, do you ever intervene on these trips?
What I'm saying is the official line from Tesla: they don't even claim to have achieved level 3, nevermind the level 4 driving you seem to think they have.
I repeat: I cannot falsify your contention. We will both go to our graves "not knowing" whether or not the driver is "really" the magic that makes the car drive itself. But only one of us is actually right.
Of course it's falsifible. I don't own a Tesla, and I wouldn't trust it even if I did, but I could check for myself by setting it to self-drive and then not paying any attention whatsoever. If I get in an accident, I was right.
More realistically, if Tesla believed their car is safe without human intervention, they could, you know, put them out on the streets without drivers, like Waymo did. Or at least tell their customers that it's actually safe to not pay full attention and that Tesla would accept liability if accidents happen, like Mercedes did. Or something in between. Since they are not doing any of these things, I think your opinion that is just obviously wrong.
This is disingenuous. And the reason is you clearly refuse to take testimony from those of us who do this every day. I'll tell you right now that it's been well over a year since I had any kind of safety-related disengagement. So, you'll change your mind?
Of course not. You're going to say that that's not enough data, and then go and cherry pick a single accident or testimony to the contrary to invalidate the data that you just said was a valid test.
Comments
Exactly. The technical argument about capabilities is largely settled at this point. Vision won, LiDAR didn't "lose", but it's clearly not any better. Yet every time the subject comes up we rehash the same arguments from 2020/21 as if the evidence of the last ~billion miles (or whatever) of road testing doesn't exist. The crashes didn't show up. The bodies aren't there. The disaster didn't happen. The product is "safe" for whatever reasonable definition you want to pick.
And to be clear, my sense is the same: FSD microdriving at this point is better than mine, interventions are about planning and intersection recognition. It'll be slow to take turns sometimes, it'll be in the wrong lane to prepare for a turn, stuff like that.
Vision didn't "win" in any way, shape, or form. The only products on the road that offer actual self driving don't rely on vision only, they have vision + lidar + other sensors.
Teslas are not "self driving", they don't allow you in any way to rely on the car alone, for any length of time, to drive itself: it's the drivers who are preventing accidents, not Tesla's FSD. When drivers of these vehicles lose attention, accidents do happen and people have died.
And exactly as predicted, these are all arguments that could have been made, verbatim, three years ago. And yet...
They are arguments that were made three years ago, and they are arguments that still hold up today.
But they didn't hold up. There are literally two orders of magnitude more vehicle-miles driven under FSD now than there were then, and there's absolutely no data showing a safety effect above the noise floor. Your argument is non-falsifiable nonsense, basically. You can continue making it forever, but that doesn't make it right.
There are exactly 0 miles of FSD driven by the public without constant attention from a driver keeping their hand on the wheel. There are disengagements of FSD in virtually every trip, where the driver feels that they need to intervene or the car would do something wrong. The safety record of FSD is basically due to the human drivers, not the AI. Tesla themselves don't have any confidence that the car can drive without constant human attention.
This is in contrast to Waymo and Mercedes, where the car actually drives itself, using both vision and other sensors, and the driver can actually disengage.
Again, non-falsifiable so I can't argue. Good trick. My car still drives me around every day and no one is crashing, so I guess everyone wins. I have an amazing supercar and you don't need to feel wrong about it.
Do you take your hands off the wheel? Do you take out a book and read it? If not, do you ever intervene on these trips?
What I'm saying is the official line from Tesla: they don't even claim to have achieved level 3, nevermind the level 4 driving you seem to think they have.
I repeat: I cannot falsify your contention. We will both go to our graves "not knowing" whether or not the driver is "really" the magic that makes the car drive itself. But only one of us is actually right.
Of course it's falsifible. I don't own a Tesla, and I wouldn't trust it even if I did, but I could check for myself by setting it to self-drive and then not paying any attention whatsoever. If I get in an accident, I was right.
More realistically, if Tesla believed their car is safe without human intervention, they could, you know, put them out on the streets without drivers, like Waymo did. Or at least tell their customers that it's actually safe to not pay full attention and that Tesla would accept liability if accidents happen, like Mercedes did. Or something in between. Since they are not doing any of these things, I think your opinion that is just obviously wrong.
This is disingenuous. And the reason is you clearly refuse to take testimony from those of us who do this every day. I'll tell you right now that it's been well over a year since I had any kind of safety-related disengagement. So, you'll change your mind?
Of course not. You're going to say that that's not enough data, and then go and cherry pick a single accident or testimony to the contrary to invalidate the data that you just said was a valid test.
Like I said, non-falsifiable.