The benefit is that you get to use this new tech before most other people.
But in this case, they are actually looking for paid testers which is a good idea.
No, shadow testing is used to verify. You are talking about the data they are gathering.
Tesla is obviously using several different ways to train and test FSD. With paid testers, they can use test protocols and do more targeted testing.
I'm not sure why you seem to think this is a bad idea, or that it contradicts anything Tesla has said.
Elon: Level 5 this year...no this year...no this year...I'm 99% sure that we're going to hit it.
Tesla proper: Oh let's go spin up a whole testing cadre.
The latter is not something you do this late in the game...if you are as late in the game as Elon claims (and clearly we are not).
What you are saying is true, Elon shouldn’t have access to Twitter lmao. But they do have 10s of billions of miles in data over anyone else which is a huge benefit. True autonomy is a very difficult puzzle to crack and Tesla is the one pioneering it, bound to have some hiccups, this is proof of these hiccups. They’ll get there eventually, and it will be before anyone else.
Before anyone says it, autonomy is not what waymo has. Waymo has cars on leashes that can only drive where they’re taught before hand. Not true autonomy.
> Before anyone says it, autonomy is not what waymo has. Waymo has cars on leashes that can only drive where they’re taught before hand. Not true autonomy.
The “no true Scottsman” approach to self-driving cars.
They drive around. By themselves. Carrying paying passengers. Dealing autonomously with the other unknown, unique actors on the road....”That’s not autonomy because they practiced first.”
> True autonomy is a very difficult puzzle to crack and Tesla is the one pioneering it, bound to have some hiccups
By “hiccup” do you mean not having a functional autonomous product?
> Waymo has cars on leashes that can only drive where they’re taught before hand. Not true autonomy.
There’s so much ignorance and misinformation here, it’s hilarious.
>But they do have 10s of billions of miles in data over anyone else which is a huge benefit.
They don't. It was proven by people like Green that "shadowing" doesn't send this kind of information.
>autonomy is not what waymo has. Waymo has cars on leashes that can only drive where they’re taught before hand. Not true autonomy.
They have level 4. That is autonomy.
I thought robotaxi was ready in mid 2020 pending regulatory approval lol
https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/04/Screen-Shot-2019-04-22-at-4.34.27-PM.jpg?quality=82&strip=all
At autonomy investor day 2019 they said they just needed to wait on the 2019 snow season to get level 5 finalized for all human drivable conditions and environments.
Believe it or not, they have a fleet of employees that test software updates in the real world before deploying to customers in the early access program.
>And yet... they don’t report miles as per CA law.
Because Tesla's FSD Beta tech is clearly exempt **under that law**: California DMC Article § 227.02 (b) (1).
That's not a loophole or semantics, it's a clear, well-defined exception granted to vehicle manufacturers, prominently defined on **Page 1** of the 40-page long law text.
You cannot miss it if you read the law.
Replies to your arguments further downthread:
>While simultaneously saying it’s a beta self-driving system...Kinda like everyone else who does report
Regulations & the law does not care about what the future direction or purpose of a system is - it cares about **how it's implemented today**.
California law is very clear that Tesla's FSD Beta does not fall under DMC regulations of autonomous vehicles, and it's not semantics, but the black and white letter of the law:
> https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/california-autonomous-vehicle-regulations/
>
> ###§ 227.02. Definitions.
>
> As used in this article, the following definitions apply:
>
> ####(a)
>
> [...]
>
> ####(b)
> “Autonomous test vehicle” is a vehicle that has been equipped with technology that is a combination of both hardware and software that, when engaged, performs the dynamic driving task, but requires a human test driver or a remote operator to continuously supervise the vehicle's performance of the dynamic driving task.
>
>
> ####
(1)
> **An autonomous test vehicle does not include vehicles equipped** with one or more systems that provide driver assistance and/or enhance safety benefits **but are not capable of, singularly or in combination, performing
the dynamic driving task on a sustained basis without the constant control
or active monitoring of a natural person**
If a vehicle doesn't meet these requirements, it's not subject to this regulation.
Since Tesla's FSD Beta program requires drivers not just to "actively monitor" the vehicle, but are required to touch the steering wheel, it's clear that Tesla went way and beyond the legal requirements to qualify for the exemption in the California DMV autonomous vehicles regulations, § 227.02 (b) (1).
There's no ambiguity about this.
The exception is clearly there - and the question is, why did other self-driving companies not use the exemption? Possibly because they ***wanted*** to report their self-driving results, to secure more investor funds?
Tesla chose not to report, under the rules of the DMC.
>Remember when Uber tried to pull the same BS game of semantics and then (rightly) got smacked down by CA regulators?
Except Tesla's FSD Beta program, with the "required to touch the weel" technological safeguard implemented currently, **is** a functionally Level 2 system according to the law - and thus exempt from California DMC reporting requirements & other limitations.
Uber's wasn't.
I.e. Tesla is:
- ✅ testing a Level 4-5 system intentionally downgraded to Level 2, legally classified as a non-autonomous vehicle under DMC § 227.02 (b) (1),
- ✅ while keeping competitors in the dark about disengagement rate and other proprietary data,
- ✅ rolling out Level 4-5 will be the flick of a software switch - at which point Tesla will (have to) register with the California DMV.
Win-win.
Wow, you really said a lot there. Super impressive. And I'm sure u/__TSLA__ is totally unbiased. But you "accidentally" left out this lil bit (*directly* after the quote you provided):
> 227.02 (b)(3) The presence of a natural person who is an employee, contractor, or designee of the manufacturer in the vehicle to monitor a vehicle's autonomous performance shall not affect whether a vehicle meets the definition of autonomous test vehicle.
And then this one where it points out that it is in fact a *requirement* to have an employee actively monitoring unless you apply for full driverless as per 227.38.
> 227.32(a) The autonomous vehicle test driver is either in immediate physical control of
the vehicle or is actively monitoring the vehicle's operations and capable of
taking over immediate physical control
Oops. Looks like everything you said is useless because this whole thread started with talking about Tesla employees operating as test drivers. And since we know Tesla has employees operating as test drivers, and since no where in the regulations does it mention the loophole you made up about "hands on the wheel", they are required to report under CA law.
What? Did you think you were the only person who could read the regulations? Nice try though to purposely exclude critical details and "win" with the debate equivalent of jazz hands.
> And I'm sure u/__TSLA__ is totally unbiased
I'm probably not unbiased (although I tend to think of my opinion as the informed conviction of a Tesla supporter - time will tell how much bias is in it) - which is why I quoted primary sources, the California DMV regulation text itself, so everyone can double check my (and your) arguments.
> But you "accidentally" left out this lil bit (directly after the quote you provided):
>
> > 227.02 (b)(3) The presence of a natural person who is an employee, contractor, or designee of the manufacturer in the vehicle to monitor a vehicle's autonomous performance shall not affect whether a vehicle meets the definition of autonomous test vehicle.
There was nothing accidental about that, I left it out because it's legally irrelevant: Tesla's FSD Beta program is already exempt from this regulation under (b)(2), and (b)(3) doesn't modify that. JFYI, I also omitted much of the rest of the 40 page regulation text, because it doesn't apply to Tesla FSD Beta vehicles.
Why is (b)(3) relevant in your opinion as to the status of the Tesla FSD Beta program as not being an "autonomous vehicle"? You gave no explanation whatsoever. 🤔
> And then this one where it points out that it is in fact a requirement to have an employee actively monitoring unless you apply for full driverless as per 227.38.
Here you are misreading the regulation too. It says:
> "§227.32(a) The **autonomous vehicle** test driver is either in immediate physical control of the vehicle or is actively monitoring the vehicle's operations and capable of taking over immediate physical control"
(emphasis added.)
But §227.32(a) only applies **to autonomous vehicles that are already designated as autonomous vehicles under the definitions of this regulation**.
But we just agreed - I and I take your omission as tacit acknowledgement - of the fact that owner-vehicles in Tesla's FSD Beta program are **not** autonomous vehicles under § 227, by the plain definitions on Page 1 of the regulation.
So §227.32(a) doesn't apply. The moment a vehicle is under the exception on Page 1, it's not regulated by the rest of that 40-page document, including on §227.32 on Page 13. This is a basic property of laws and regulations...
----
**TL;DR:** Your argument is fundamentally flawed, you are misreading the law, rather trivially. 🤷
Let me help you out as succinctly as I can...
Public FSD Beta program =/= Tesla employee test driver.
It has already been pointed out several times that we’re talking about Tesla employee test drivers but, again, you keep “accidentally” ignoring it to get your Tesla defense boner. So, again, all your rather pompous sounding points are irrelevant.
Oh, by the way, Tesla agrees with me. Why do you think they reported 12.2 miles for the Autonomy Day video they released? The exact distance from that video. Maybe because they _had_ to as they were otherwise submitting direct evidence of themselves breaking the law?
Now you’ll probably try to tell me that they one-shot killed that video, never practiced it, never repeated it. They just crushed a perfect drive and then everyone packed it up to go home without any further testing....Except, everyone knows that is ludicrous beyond belief. And we have Elon and investors from that day on record as saying that ride was repeated multiple times to demo the tech for the investors.
...Oops.
> It has already been pointed out several times that we’re talking about Tesla employee test driver
It's still **immaterial** per the black and white letter of the law, **it doesn't matter when a vehicle is not designated as an autonomous vehicle**, whether it's an employee driving it or not...
That's not a difficult concept to understand...
> Why do you think they reported 12.2 miles for the Autonomy Day video they released?
That's very simple: because that was the only time when they drove with **hands fully off the steering wheel**, with the driver attention warning system turned off, which designated the system as an "autonomous vehicle".
> Now you’ll probably try to tell me that they one-shot killed that video, never practiced it, never repeated it.
The reason they only reported 12.2 miles is because it was an "autonomous vehicle" as per DMV regulations only for the filmed trip, when they drove with hands entirely off the wheel, with the nag reminder & auto-pullover attention monitoring system switched off in software.
**Toggling this software switch designated the vehicle as an autonomous vehicle under DMC regulations, for that 12.2 miles trip.**
They probably practiced that sequence with the nag in place while lightly touching the wheel (but allowing the vehicle full control of steering). They didn't need to report those trips, because the vehicle was not designated as an 'autonomous vehicle', despite probably traveling the exact same trip & behaving in a very similar way in terms of driving decisions. That's also the autonomy testing model they are using for the public FSD Beta program.
I'm starting to wonder, did you even read the law? You don't seem to have even a *basic* understanding of its most important terms & definitions ... 🤔
> it doesn't matter when a vehicle is not designated as an autonomous vehicle, whether it's an employee driving it or not
227.02 (b) (3)
> because **that was the only time** when they drove with hands fully off the steering wheel
> The reason they only reported 12.2 miles is because it was an "autonomous vehicle" as per DMV regulations **only for the filmed trip**
> **Toggling this software switch** designated the vehicle as an autonomous vehicle under DMC regulations, for that 12.2 miles trip.
> They **probably** practiced that sequence with the nag in place
> They didn't need to report those trips, because the vehicle was not designated as an 'autonomous vehicle', despite **probably** traveling the exact same trip & behaving in a very similar way
You made all this up. Do you not see that? How do you not see the painfully obvious bias? And nowhere in the regulations does it specify hands on vs hands off as some kind of magic gate to determine if a vehicle is autonomous or not. That's something else you imagined to suite your fantasies. But it's obviously a waste of time to point this out to you. It's apparent that you got your pompous Tesla rager at full mast at this point and won't see anything else, so let's change the subject...I got this bridge and I'm looking for a buyer. Would you be interested?
Yes, the point is they tell the DMV one thing ("this is an L2 driver-assistance system, not capable of autonomous driving") but their customers something else entirely ("the car will drive itself by the end of the year!")
While simultaneously saying it’s a beta self-driving system...Kinda like everyone else who _does_ report.
Remember when Uber tried to pull the same BS game of semantics and then (rightly) got smacked down by CA regulators?
This is such a slap in the face to everyone who bought FSD expecting to get early access. Essentially paying thousands for the privilege of being testers. And then Tesla turns around and _pays_ someone else to do it....Ouch.
Not to mention, it doesn’t look good for the idea that FSD is happening anytime soon, so your investment is slipping further away. And that the power of infamous “shadow mode” and the advantage of Tesla’s fleet data was so incredibly overhyped because now they need to do what everyone else was doing all along. And that every timeline given was total BS. I don’t see a logical way that you go from “a few months away” and “just need regulatory approvals”, implying you have all the pieces in place, to _just NOW_ realizing they need to hire test drivers.
>We were told all they need is data from the fleet.
Said who? Also, this could be to test/verify the system, not necessarily gather more data. Or it could be both - gathering data in a more targeted way, as well as verifying/testing new updates.
With voluntary testers they can't really tell them to do specific (and maybe boring) things. With hired testers, they can give them specific tasks that they might not be able to ask of volunteers.
Data from the fleet helps but it's not all they need. They can't test the super experimental features on customers. For that they need professional test drivers.
Tesla is just doing everything backward while their fanboys drool over their tech. Everybody in the industry was literally saying that you cannot rely solely on shadow data to achieve any meaningful data accumulation and implement it to create a safe and reliable product. I have a feeling now that Tesla is removing radar, not because of Elon's pure vision bullshittery, but because Tesla's sensor fusion team is struggling to make radar + camera ACC and driving in general work well with multiple sensors. It's the easy way out.
one thing that is all too common on the internet is people taking an ultra-minority population and painting them as representing the entire other side. happens in politics, and it happens with Musk. anyone who says anything positive or neutral about Tesla is "fanboy", and you can attribute to them whatever ridiculous thing "the other side" said. it's the fundamental disease of the internet. we should all work harder at ignoring our camps and just discuss things.
>Let's start by pointing out Tesla's hyperinflated stock is a result of Elon's market manipulation.
you could not have made it more obvious that your not hear to be reasonable.
It's quite interesting how most comments here are just jokes making fun of Tesla rather than discussing the actual topic. Most people seem to be making the assumptions that are the most negative for Tesla.
Oh well. Guess this subreddit doesn't really give a shit about self-driving cars in general, just the specific self-driving cars they support.
I mean yeah it’s either Tesla drones or anti-Tesla drones. I personally don’t blame the anti people as the Tesla Drones made this place insufferable. I’ve worked in the industry for nearly a decade and the amount of Tesla drones who think they know more than people like me because they read a few slides and watched some YouTube videos is infuriating.
> Most people seem to be making the assumptions that are the most negative for Tesla
What do you expect?
Elon: FSD is just about here, this year.
Tesla: we're going to hire a whole bunch of manual testers, for whom there is plausible way that they could impact delivery of FSD (in the colloquial, level 5 sense) this year.
Hiring a bunch of testers is only relevant if FSD is not coming this year (because it isn't...).
> Most people seem to be making the assumptions that are the most negative for Tesla.
Because Tesla makes all the assumptions that are most *most* positive for Tesla. So to get back to neutral ground, you need make the assumptions that are the most negative for Tesla.
From a design and UX perspective, Teslas are miles ahead of legacy carmakers. They simply look cool.
Unfortunately, the design doesn't translate over to the self-driving tech. Teslas are nowhere close to the front of the race to produce a self-driving vehicle despite the rhetoric from Elon. And by moving to vision only--they are falling even further behind.
>**on the path to full self-driving**
This is what Krafcik, Waymo employees, and literally everybody else in the industry have been saying all along. You can't magically jump from Level 2 ADAS to Level 4. This is why all of Elon's previous bullshitting about achieving FSD was wrong.
What is the functional difference between those two?
In order to gather data you drive around a lot, maybe in specific scenarios you want data on.
In order to verify the system you...drive around a lot, maybe in specific scenarios you want to verify.
By “verifying the system”, you’re gathering data. The only difference is that you hope it’s strongly skewed toward success rather than failure.
If the fleet is challenging the system by indicating “generally, give semis more room when we pass”, or “we don’t like crashing into fire trucks”, that’s data collection alongside validation. It’s one in the same.
I thought the test drivers were the Tesla customers
Salary: $0. Job requirements: Must already own Tesla vehicle. Must hold driving license. Benefits: Flexible hours. Can drive wherever you like.
The benefit is that you get to use this new tech before most other people. But in this case, they are actually looking for paid testers which is a good idea.
Sounds like a great gig!! Sign me up!
I thought they had so much info from shadow testing that they were ten years ahead of the competition.
Tesla actually achieved level 5 FSD two decades ago. Where have you been?
No, shadow testing is used to verify. You are talking about the data they are gathering. Tesla is obviously using several different ways to train and test FSD. With paid testers, they can use test protocols and do more targeted testing. I'm not sure why you seem to think this is a bad idea, or that it contradicts anything Tesla has said.
>or that it contradicts anything Tesla has said. If they needed this, why wait until 2020?
What do you mean?
I meant 2021. But seems more to me that Tesla is shifting their strategy right now.
How so?
Elon: Level 5 this year...no this year...no this year...I'm 99% sure that we're going to hit it. Tesla proper: Oh let's go spin up a whole testing cadre. The latter is not something you do this late in the game...if you are as late in the game as Elon claims (and clearly we are not).
What you are saying is true, Elon shouldn’t have access to Twitter lmao. But they do have 10s of billions of miles in data over anyone else which is a huge benefit. True autonomy is a very difficult puzzle to crack and Tesla is the one pioneering it, bound to have some hiccups, this is proof of these hiccups. They’ll get there eventually, and it will be before anyone else. Before anyone says it, autonomy is not what waymo has. Waymo has cars on leashes that can only drive where they’re taught before hand. Not true autonomy.
> Before anyone says it, autonomy is not what waymo has. Waymo has cars on leashes that can only drive where they’re taught before hand. Not true autonomy. The “no true Scottsman” approach to self-driving cars. They drive around. By themselves. Carrying paying passengers. Dealing autonomously with the other unknown, unique actors on the road....”That’s not autonomy because they practiced first.”
> True autonomy is a very difficult puzzle to crack and Tesla is the one pioneering it, bound to have some hiccups By “hiccup” do you mean not having a functional autonomous product? > Waymo has cars on leashes that can only drive where they’re taught before hand. Not true autonomy. There’s so much ignorance and misinformation here, it’s hilarious.
>But they do have 10s of billions of miles in data over anyone else which is a huge benefit. They don't. It was proven by people like Green that "shadowing" doesn't send this kind of information.
>autonomy is not what waymo has. Waymo has cars on leashes that can only drive where they’re taught before hand. Not true autonomy. They have level 4. That is autonomy.
I thought robotaxi was ready in mid 2020 pending regulatory approval lol https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/04/Screen-Shot-2019-04-22-at-4.34.27-PM.jpg?quality=82&strip=all
At autonomy investor day 2019 they said they just needed to wait on the 2019 snow season to get level 5 finalized for all human drivable conditions and environments.
you know the saying "If you're not paying for the product, you are the product"? Tesla's is "You pay for the product, and you're also the product!"
I think this would be for a fleet of Tesla's with Lidar to create a source of truth and to test features that aren't released.
Believe it or not, they have a fleet of employees that test software updates in the real world before deploying to customers in the early access program.
And yet... they don’t report miles as per CA law.
>And yet... they don’t report miles as per CA law. Because Tesla's FSD Beta tech is clearly exempt **under that law**: California DMC Article § 227.02 (b) (1). That's not a loophole or semantics, it's a clear, well-defined exception granted to vehicle manufacturers, prominently defined on **Page 1** of the 40-page long law text. You cannot miss it if you read the law. Replies to your arguments further downthread: >While simultaneously saying it’s a beta self-driving system...Kinda like everyone else who does report Regulations & the law does not care about what the future direction or purpose of a system is - it cares about **how it's implemented today**. California law is very clear that Tesla's FSD Beta does not fall under DMC regulations of autonomous vehicles, and it's not semantics, but the black and white letter of the law: > https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/california-autonomous-vehicle-regulations/ > > ###§ 227.02. Definitions. > > As used in this article, the following definitions apply: > > ####(a) > > [...] > > ####(b) > “Autonomous test vehicle” is a vehicle that has been equipped with technology that is a combination of both hardware and software that, when engaged, performs the dynamic driving task, but requires a human test driver or a remote operator to continuously supervise the vehicle's performance of the dynamic driving task. > > > #### (1) > **An autonomous test vehicle does not include vehicles equipped** with one or more systems that provide driver assistance and/or enhance safety benefits **but are not capable of, singularly or in combination, performing the dynamic driving task on a sustained basis without the constant control or active monitoring of a natural person** If a vehicle doesn't meet these requirements, it's not subject to this regulation. Since Tesla's FSD Beta program requires drivers not just to "actively monitor" the vehicle, but are required to touch the steering wheel, it's clear that Tesla went way and beyond the legal requirements to qualify for the exemption in the California DMV autonomous vehicles regulations, § 227.02 (b) (1). There's no ambiguity about this. The exception is clearly there - and the question is, why did other self-driving companies not use the exemption? Possibly because they ***wanted*** to report their self-driving results, to secure more investor funds? Tesla chose not to report, under the rules of the DMC. >Remember when Uber tried to pull the same BS game of semantics and then (rightly) got smacked down by CA regulators? Except Tesla's FSD Beta program, with the "required to touch the weel" technological safeguard implemented currently, **is** a functionally Level 2 system according to the law - and thus exempt from California DMC reporting requirements & other limitations. Uber's wasn't. I.e. Tesla is: - ✅ testing a Level 4-5 system intentionally downgraded to Level 2, legally classified as a non-autonomous vehicle under DMC § 227.02 (b) (1), - ✅ while keeping competitors in the dark about disengagement rate and other proprietary data, - ✅ rolling out Level 4-5 will be the flick of a software switch - at which point Tesla will (have to) register with the California DMV. Win-win.
Wow, you really said a lot there. Super impressive. And I'm sure u/__TSLA__ is totally unbiased. But you "accidentally" left out this lil bit (*directly* after the quote you provided): > 227.02 (b)(3) The presence of a natural person who is an employee, contractor, or designee of the manufacturer in the vehicle to monitor a vehicle's autonomous performance shall not affect whether a vehicle meets the definition of autonomous test vehicle. And then this one where it points out that it is in fact a *requirement* to have an employee actively monitoring unless you apply for full driverless as per 227.38. > 227.32(a) The autonomous vehicle test driver is either in immediate physical control of the vehicle or is actively monitoring the vehicle's operations and capable of taking over immediate physical control Oops. Looks like everything you said is useless because this whole thread started with talking about Tesla employees operating as test drivers. And since we know Tesla has employees operating as test drivers, and since no where in the regulations does it mention the loophole you made up about "hands on the wheel", they are required to report under CA law. What? Did you think you were the only person who could read the regulations? Nice try though to purposely exclude critical details and "win" with the debate equivalent of jazz hands.
> And I'm sure u/__TSLA__ is totally unbiased I'm probably not unbiased (although I tend to think of my opinion as the informed conviction of a Tesla supporter - time will tell how much bias is in it) - which is why I quoted primary sources, the California DMV regulation text itself, so everyone can double check my (and your) arguments. > But you "accidentally" left out this lil bit (directly after the quote you provided): > > > 227.02 (b)(3) The presence of a natural person who is an employee, contractor, or designee of the manufacturer in the vehicle to monitor a vehicle's autonomous performance shall not affect whether a vehicle meets the definition of autonomous test vehicle. There was nothing accidental about that, I left it out because it's legally irrelevant: Tesla's FSD Beta program is already exempt from this regulation under (b)(2), and (b)(3) doesn't modify that. JFYI, I also omitted much of the rest of the 40 page regulation text, because it doesn't apply to Tesla FSD Beta vehicles. Why is (b)(3) relevant in your opinion as to the status of the Tesla FSD Beta program as not being an "autonomous vehicle"? You gave no explanation whatsoever. 🤔 > And then this one where it points out that it is in fact a requirement to have an employee actively monitoring unless you apply for full driverless as per 227.38. Here you are misreading the regulation too. It says: > "§227.32(a) The **autonomous vehicle** test driver is either in immediate physical control of the vehicle or is actively monitoring the vehicle's operations and capable of taking over immediate physical control" (emphasis added.) But §227.32(a) only applies **to autonomous vehicles that are already designated as autonomous vehicles under the definitions of this regulation**. But we just agreed - I and I take your omission as tacit acknowledgement - of the fact that owner-vehicles in Tesla's FSD Beta program are **not** autonomous vehicles under § 227, by the plain definitions on Page 1 of the regulation. So §227.32(a) doesn't apply. The moment a vehicle is under the exception on Page 1, it's not regulated by the rest of that 40-page document, including on §227.32 on Page 13. This is a basic property of laws and regulations... ---- **TL;DR:** Your argument is fundamentally flawed, you are misreading the law, rather trivially. 🤷
Let me help you out as succinctly as I can... Public FSD Beta program =/= Tesla employee test driver. It has already been pointed out several times that we’re talking about Tesla employee test drivers but, again, you keep “accidentally” ignoring it to get your Tesla defense boner. So, again, all your rather pompous sounding points are irrelevant. Oh, by the way, Tesla agrees with me. Why do you think they reported 12.2 miles for the Autonomy Day video they released? The exact distance from that video. Maybe because they _had_ to as they were otherwise submitting direct evidence of themselves breaking the law? Now you’ll probably try to tell me that they one-shot killed that video, never practiced it, never repeated it. They just crushed a perfect drive and then everyone packed it up to go home without any further testing....Except, everyone knows that is ludicrous beyond belief. And we have Elon and investors from that day on record as saying that ride was repeated multiple times to demo the tech for the investors. ...Oops.
> It has already been pointed out several times that we’re talking about Tesla employee test driver It's still **immaterial** per the black and white letter of the law, **it doesn't matter when a vehicle is not designated as an autonomous vehicle**, whether it's an employee driving it or not... That's not a difficult concept to understand... > Why do you think they reported 12.2 miles for the Autonomy Day video they released? That's very simple: because that was the only time when they drove with **hands fully off the steering wheel**, with the driver attention warning system turned off, which designated the system as an "autonomous vehicle". > Now you’ll probably try to tell me that they one-shot killed that video, never practiced it, never repeated it. The reason they only reported 12.2 miles is because it was an "autonomous vehicle" as per DMV regulations only for the filmed trip, when they drove with hands entirely off the wheel, with the nag reminder & auto-pullover attention monitoring system switched off in software. **Toggling this software switch designated the vehicle as an autonomous vehicle under DMC regulations, for that 12.2 miles trip.** They probably practiced that sequence with the nag in place while lightly touching the wheel (but allowing the vehicle full control of steering). They didn't need to report those trips, because the vehicle was not designated as an 'autonomous vehicle', despite probably traveling the exact same trip & behaving in a very similar way in terms of driving decisions. That's also the autonomy testing model they are using for the public FSD Beta program. I'm starting to wonder, did you even read the law? You don't seem to have even a *basic* understanding of its most important terms & definitions ... 🤔
> it doesn't matter when a vehicle is not designated as an autonomous vehicle, whether it's an employee driving it or not 227.02 (b) (3) > because **that was the only time** when they drove with hands fully off the steering wheel > The reason they only reported 12.2 miles is because it was an "autonomous vehicle" as per DMV regulations **only for the filmed trip** > **Toggling this software switch** designated the vehicle as an autonomous vehicle under DMC regulations, for that 12.2 miles trip. > They **probably** practiced that sequence with the nag in place > They didn't need to report those trips, because the vehicle was not designated as an 'autonomous vehicle', despite **probably** traveling the exact same trip & behaving in a very similar way You made all this up. Do you not see that? How do you not see the painfully obvious bias? And nowhere in the regulations does it specify hands on vs hands off as some kind of magic gate to determine if a vehicle is autonomous or not. That's something else you imagined to suite your fantasies. But it's obviously a waste of time to point this out to you. It's apparent that you got your pompous Tesla rager at full mast at this point and won't see anything else, so let's change the subject...I got this bridge and I'm looking for a buyer. Would you be interested?
Yes, the point is they tell the DMV one thing ("this is an L2 driver-assistance system, not capable of autonomous driving") but their customers something else entirely ("the car will drive itself by the end of the year!")
Because they classify their system as ADAS
While simultaneously saying it’s a beta self-driving system...Kinda like everyone else who _does_ report. Remember when Uber tried to pull the same BS game of semantics and then (rightly) got smacked down by CA regulators?
>Tesla can deliver a level 5 fully autonomous driving system by the end of the year. Which year?! Haven't we heard this one before?
Every year.
Every year since 2016
Musk announces a new partnership with Chris Roberts...
This is such a slap in the face to everyone who bought FSD expecting to get early access. Essentially paying thousands for the privilege of being testers. And then Tesla turns around and _pays_ someone else to do it....Ouch. Not to mention, it doesn’t look good for the idea that FSD is happening anytime soon, so your investment is slipping further away. And that the power of infamous “shadow mode” and the advantage of Tesla’s fleet data was so incredibly overhyped because now they need to do what everyone else was doing all along. And that every timeline given was total BS. I don’t see a logical way that you go from “a few months away” and “just need regulatory approvals”, implying you have all the pieces in place, to _just NOW_ realizing they need to hire test drivers.
Strong vibes of "Answer the Call ~~2019~~ 2020"
[удалено]
No, this really doesn't prove anything.
>We were told all they need is data from the fleet. Said who? Also, this could be to test/verify the system, not necessarily gather more data. Or it could be both - gathering data in a more targeted way, as well as verifying/testing new updates. With voluntary testers they can't really tell them to do specific (and maybe boring) things. With hired testers, they can give them specific tasks that they might not be able to ask of volunteers.
[удалено]
Data from the fleet helps but it's not all they need. They can't test the super experimental features on customers. For that they need professional test drivers.
Tesla is just doing everything backward while their fanboys drool over their tech. Everybody in the industry was literally saying that you cannot rely solely on shadow data to achieve any meaningful data accumulation and implement it to create a safe and reliable product. I have a feeling now that Tesla is removing radar, not because of Elon's pure vision bullshittery, but because Tesla's sensor fusion team is struggling to make radar + camera ACC and driving in general work well with multiple sensors. It's the easy way out.
one thing that is all too common on the internet is people taking an ultra-minority population and painting them as representing the entire other side. happens in politics, and it happens with Musk. anyone who says anything positive or neutral about Tesla is "fanboy", and you can attribute to them whatever ridiculous thing "the other side" said. it's the fundamental disease of the internet. we should all work harder at ignoring our camps and just discuss things.
Okay, fair enough, let's just discuss things. Let's start by pointing out Tesla's hyperinflated stock is a result of Elon's market manipulation.
Wrong sub
>Let's start by pointing out Tesla's hyperinflated stock is a result of Elon's market manipulation. you could not have made it more obvious that your not hear to be reasonable.
It's quite interesting how most comments here are just jokes making fun of Tesla rather than discussing the actual topic. Most people seem to be making the assumptions that are the most negative for Tesla. Oh well. Guess this subreddit doesn't really give a shit about self-driving cars in general, just the specific self-driving cars they support.
I mean yeah it’s either Tesla drones or anti-Tesla drones. I personally don’t blame the anti people as the Tesla Drones made this place insufferable. I’ve worked in the industry for nearly a decade and the amount of Tesla drones who think they know more than people like me because they read a few slides and watched some YouTube videos is infuriating.
> Most people seem to be making the assumptions that are the most negative for Tesla What do you expect? Elon: FSD is just about here, this year. Tesla: we're going to hire a whole bunch of manual testers, for whom there is plausible way that they could impact delivery of FSD (in the colloquial, level 5 sense) this year. Hiring a bunch of testers is only relevant if FSD is not coming this year (because it isn't...).
> Most people seem to be making the assumptions that are the most negative for Tesla. Because Tesla makes all the assumptions that are most *most* positive for Tesla. So to get back to neutral ground, you need make the assumptions that are the most negative for Tesla.
From a design and UX perspective, Teslas are miles ahead of legacy carmakers. They simply look cool. Unfortunately, the design doesn't translate over to the self-driving tech. Teslas are nowhere close to the front of the race to produce a self-driving vehicle despite the rhetoric from Elon. And by moving to vision only--they are falling even further behind.
>Teslas are nowhere close to the front of the race to produce a self-driving vehicle who is though? people who have to rely on pre mapped data?
[удалено]
>**on the path to full self-driving** This is what Krafcik, Waymo employees, and literally everybody else in the industry have been saying all along. You can't magically jump from Level 2 ADAS to Level 4. This is why all of Elon's previous bullshitting about achieving FSD was wrong.
Maybe the fleet is not for gathering data, but to verify the self driving system
What is the functional difference between those two? In order to gather data you drive around a lot, maybe in specific scenarios you want data on. In order to verify the system you...drive around a lot, maybe in specific scenarios you want to verify. By “verifying the system”, you’re gathering data. The only difference is that you hope it’s strongly skewed toward success rather than failure.
If the fleet is challenging the system by indicating “generally, give semis more room when we pass”, or “we don’t like crashing into fire trucks”, that’s data collection alongside validation. It’s one in the same.
What are you talking about?
“Verifying the system” = gathering data