new speedometer cluster?

[Jhodgesatmb]

Especially if the did make the side mirrors easily removable, having an option for a persistent view of both the left and right side camera view in the left and right side of the instrument cluster would have been a huge help. Also, I’m considering a Model Y for my wife next year and I’m not a fan of the aftermarket options out there quite honestly. They look cheap-ish and obviously aftermarket, just not a fan.

Like you, while not a dealbreaker, this is one thing I am disappointed not to see included especially if certain variants of the Cybertruck get to Model S and X prices.

S and X prices are not so far from the original tri-motor price right now

Sponsored

 

[Deleted member 12560]

Actually, not my assumption. You could be in a robotaxi.

I would never voluntarily get in one of those. I avoid the Miami Metromover because it is automated.

Sorry for directing my ire your way, this is a "me" problem. This topic pushes my buttons not because "AI is evil" (it's not) but because coders are lazy (which is the root cause of 99% of the major screw-ups that have occurred in recent history). Hell, it almost led us to WW-III back in 1995 (US spy satellites mistakenly detected 5 ICBM launches in Russia and we automatically went to DefCon 4. Human intervention prevented a nuclear holocaust. It was later discovered that the analysis software couldn't tell the difference between a missile launch and sunlight being reflected off clouds. Why? Lazy coding.

 

[JBee]

You assume one has purchased the FSD.

I have not.

I can barely afford the dual-motor version let alone a piece of software I refuse to use let alone pay for.

I say this having retired from 38 years in I.T. A.I. may be advancing rapidly, but legislation governing it is not. Between that and federally mandated backdoors (don't even think for a second that that has not already happened) which will allow legislative bodies to insert a code snippet that supports whatever idiotic idea pops into their tiny brains and will likely cause the largest automotive accident in the history of the automobile.

Another (much more likely) scenario would be getting the FSD damaged with badly coded OTA update and the vehicles driving themselves off to cause mayhem somewhere.

Something like this recently happened to cloud connected 3D printers from Bambu Labs. A badly written update caused thousands of printers around the world to spontaneously start printing some random nonsense and damaged a large portion of the devices.

Lol speaking of we just got a Bambu Labs P1S with AMS last week. I've been printing every day since and have put my other printers out for collection....so fast and so accurate, and all with no configuration fuss. As close to a paper printer experience as you can get atm.

But I have the printer on a remote switch that turns it off when we don't need it, mostly to save power (we're completely offgrid) and to obviously avoid random cloud printing.

You have a good point regarding FSD, regulations and connectivity, one that poses significant security risks by exposing new extremely vulnerable attack vectors to malicious operators.

At a minimum I want a kill switch that cuts power and stops the vehicle with any type of FSD.

 

[JBee]

Don't need the implant for this. The AI will just do the signals for you. It already knows where you are going and the best way to get there. It will tell you when to change lanes.

As for all the people wanting HUD or other situational awareness... That is old school. This vehicle is going to be driving better than you and will protect you from all the crazy mistakes you already make driving. Not only is Elon trying to reduce parts to save money, he is trying to rely less on your attention span to save lives. The less you as a human are involved in the driving the better (and safer for the rest of us).

You missed the main point of my post.

Augmentation.

All technology is created to assist us, but not replace us.

There is a fundamental difference in principle and how things work because of it.

As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of all invention, and as such it is our "necessity" that changes the world. It's the same in that technology isn't good or evil, it's just a tool that does the will of the user. The point is that replacing us, or in this case taking us "out of the loop" does not always equate to a better product. Especially so if it is still in its infancy.

The other issue is "connectivity" in that there are certain systems that must function reliably without any connectivity.

For a Tesla example: While we were visiting Yosemite our MYP decided to do a 95minute software update. WIthout asking us at all to do so. It pestered us twice on the days previously which we delayed, and then we parked the car and got out to make some pictures whilst leaving the valley through the tunnel it started the update by itself while we were away. Because of that it had just enough data reception to do the update, which stranded us there, no power, no AC, and of course no driving. It was in effect broken down because of a saftware update. Now in an emergency situation that is a full on "no-go", and could have been life threatening in various cases without a doubt. In ours thankfully it wasn't, and we waited patiently with the windows down (so we could get out if the doors locked).

The point is that although humans are fallible, so are machines. The difference is that humans can learn to adapt without the need for a super computer AI to adapt to unknown situations.

So like it or not, humans will stay in the loop for a long while yet. And that is a good thing, considering they are also the same falliable humans that are making the technology in the first place.

So give them the tools to be augmented by technology, not impaired by it. In principle it's that easy.

 

[FutureBoy]

I would never voluntarily get in one of those. I avoid the Miami Metromover because it is automated.

Sorry for directing my ire your way, this is a "me" problem. This topic pushes my buttons not because "AI is evil" (it's not) but because coders are lazy (which is the root cause of 99% of the major screw-ups that have occurred in recent history). Hell, it almost led us to WW-III back in 1995 (US spy satellites mistakenly detected 5 ICBM launches in Russia and we automatically went to DefCon 4. Human intervention prevented a nuclear holocaust. It was later discovered that the analysis software couldn't tell the difference between a missile launch and sunlight being reflected off clouds. Why? Lazy coding.

Having worked in software for many years, I totally feel you. I've seen how software can easily do things that the human overlords never even considered. But I'm also very well aware of the spectacular humans that seem to break even worse than the software. At least with software (well at least previous to AI) we can generally assume that the software itself had no ill intent (though the coder behind it might very well have). Generally that lack of ill intent combined with the ability to evaluate so much faster than those in meatspace gives me great hope for the future of FSD like software. And as much as I know about how AI can have unexpected behaviors and learnings, I am greatly encouraged by the new FSD 12 design of nets all the way down. It would be very difficult for some backroom bond villain to sneak in a predictable backdoor through the millions of sample videos that FSD is learning from. Not so say that AI itself won't get to the point of making a decision some day to sacrificially eliminate 1 or 2 specific individuals for the "betterment" of the future. If it can make those kinds of decisions, it would be able to plan it to the point that it is completely plausible to be a freak accident.

Now on the nuclear missile front, there needs to be either a total dismantling of that old tech or a much safer upgrade soon. It's just too dangerous. But of course, in either case, human interaction can cause all sorts of accidents to happen so really just the fact that those weapons exist is a severely dangerous situation. Crossing my fingers that we never see the negative consequences that might easily happen.

 

[FutureBoy]

You missed the main point of my post.

Possibly because I was responding to @etrigan63 instead of you.

Augmentation. Bei

All technology is created to assist us, but not replace us.

Personally I take Elon's view that we are already augmented through the use of cell phones and other computing devices. So even though we (well other than the possibly existing human trial individuals) are not yet augmented in meatspace directly, we already are being augmented with compute power. And FSD AI is just another one of these augmentations.

So even though some of the people here don't want to be "replaced" by FSD, I just see it as another form of augmentation. By taking over the physical driving and critical multiplicity of minute decisions required for that, my mind is being augmented to allow for so many more spinning cycles on those small tasks and thus relieved to be able to make the more general decisions like where to set the destination and what interesting road trip games to play with the family along the way. I'm still in control like the CEO of a company is in control. But the AI worker threads are doing the day-to-day menial tasks of making the company (car in this case) do my bidding. If I don't hire out those menial tasks, I can never be freed up to do the much more fulfilling and fun tasks of running things and growing in functionality. FSD is not replacing the human. It is just elevating the influence of the human to a more interesting level with the ability to take on greater responsibility.

There is a fundamental difference in principle and how things work because of it.

As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of all invention, and as such it is our "necessity" that changes the world. It's the same in that technology isn't good or evil, it's just a tool that does the will of the user. The point is that replacing us, or in this case taking us "out of the loop" does not always equate to a better product. Especially so if it is still in its infancy.

The other issue is "connectivity" in that there are certain systems that must function reliably without any connectivity.

For a Tesla example: While we were visiting Yosemite our MYP decided to do a 95minute software update. WIthout asking us at all to do so. It pestered us twice on the days previously which we delayed, and then we parked the car and got out to make some pictures whilst leaving the valley through the tunnel it started the update by itself while we were away. Because of that it had just enough data reception to do the update, which stranded us there, no power, no AC, and of course no driving. It was in effect broken down because of a saftware update. Now in an emergency situation that is a full on "no-go", and could have been life threatening in various cases without a doubt. In ours thankfully it wasn't, and we waited patiently with the windows down (so we could get out if the doors locked).

The point is that although humans are fallible, so are machines. The difference is that humans can learn to adapt without the need for a super computer AI to adapt to unknown situations.

So like it or not, humans will stay in the loop for a long while yet. And that is a good thing, considering they are also the same falliable humans that are making the technology in the first place.

So give them the tools to be augmented by technology, not impaired by it. In principle it's that easy.

I'm curious how you will respond when your implant wants to do an upgrade in the middle of the day after you pushed off the update for 2 days...

But yes, there are ways that Tesla still needs to improve their software. I doubt that the OTA update software has much if any AI nets in it. But ideally it would be able to "know" that being out in the middle of nowhere on a quick break would not be an ideal time to run an update. Possibly even better would be if it could over-ride your initial delays for a middle of the night update somewhere that was much less likely to cause you issues.

Individually, humans are very unpredictable. But at population scale, they become very predictable. And the software for things like this should consider these patterns when making decisions that will impact the humans in possibly critical ways.

 

[SlegMD]

Until FSD is 2-way communicating with other cars instead of just reacting to them, I will be non-FSD.

That is my uninformed technical analysis as I have not been following FSD development closely. ?

 

[kbolt]

You missed the main point of my post.

Augmentation.

All technology is created to assist us, but not replace us.

There is a fundamental difference in principle and how things work because of it.

As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of all invention, and as such it is our "necessity" that changes the world. It's the same in that technology isn't good or evil, it's just a tool that does the will of the user. The point is that replacing us, or in this case taking us "out of the loop" does not always equate to a better product. Especially so if it is still in its infancy.

The other issue is "connectivity" in that there are certain systems that must function reliably without any connectivity.

For a Tesla example: While we were visiting Yosemite our MYP decided to do a 95minute software update. WIthout asking us at all to do so. It pestered us twice on the days previously which we delayed, and then we parked the car and got out to make some pictures whilst leaving the valley through the tunnel it started the update by itself while we were away. Because of that it had just enough data reception to do the update, which stranded us there, no power, no AC, and of course no driving. It was in effect broken down because of a saftware update. Now in an emergency situation that is a full on "no-go", and could have been life threatening in various cases without a doubt. In ours thankfully it wasn't, and we waited patiently with the windows down (so we could get out if the doors locked).

The point is that although humans are fallible, so are machines. The difference is that humans can learn to adapt without the need for a super computer AI to adapt to unknown situations.

So like it or not, humans will stay in the loop for a long while yet. And that is a good thing, considering they are also the same falliable humans that are making the technology in the first place.

So give them the tools to be augmented by technology, not impaired by it. In principle it's that easy.

That's crazy that "it decided to do an update for you". I've seen people in my FB group saying they haven't updated in years because they didn't want to take the camera sensor only update.

How are are you that you, or someone with access to the car, didn't accept the update?

 

[kbolt]

I skipped 13 pages. East the consensus that there is or isn't a new speed cluster?

 

[CyberGus]

I skipped 13 pages. East the consensus that there is or isn't a new speed cluster?

Answer on page 27

 

[ldjessee]

You missed the main point of my post.

Augmentation.

All technology is created to assist us, but not replace us.

There is a fundamental difference in principle and how things work because of it.

As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of all invention, and as such it is our "necessity" that changes the world. It's the same in that technology isn't good or evil, it's just a tool that does the will of the user. The point is that replacing us, or in this case taking us "out of the loop" does not always equate to a better product. Especially so if it is still in its infancy.

Red button might be required until someone pushing it causes an accident.

How many elevators are manually operated?

Traffic lights?

We have automated so many things, taken humans out of the loop, we have forgotten we even did it to begin with.

There are lazy people in almost every profession, even the ones that have very hard academic and/or hands on education over a long period. Sure, it probably weeds some out, but not all.
Having been a developer, you can say I am lazy, but I would work late, I payed, to try to make it write.

How about management that refuses to adjust deadlines based on changing or expanded requirements?

Or not enough resources for testing?

Keep blaming the developer/programmer, but like most problems, the more you look into it, the more you know, the less straight forward and thus the solution is harder to create.

 

[rudedawg78]

Ford added HUD. I have friends with vehicles and HUDs and absolutely love them.

My wife has a HUD on her BMW. I freakin love it and it is so nice being able to look straight forward to see your speed, cruise control settings, radio stations, being able to skip current song or podcast on your bluetooth, etc. It is highly visible during the day and night, as well.

I wish the CT had it. From all the photos we have seen, I haven't noticed a projector on the drivers side dashboard. If there is an aftermarket HUD accessory, then I will probably purchase it.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

You missed the main point of my post.

Augmentation.

All technology is created to assist us, but not replace us.

There is a fundamental difference in principle and how things work because of it.

As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of all invention, and as such it is our "necessity" that changes the world. It's the same in that technology isn't good or evil, it's just a tool that does the will of the user. The point is that replacing us, or in this case taking us "out of the loop" does not always equate to a better product. Especially so if it is still in its infancy.

The other issue is "connectivity" in that there are certain systems that must function reliably without any connectivity.

For a Tesla example: While we were visiting Yosemite our MYP decided to do a 95minute software update. WIthout asking us at all to do so. It pestered us twice on the days previously which we delayed, and then we parked the car and got out to make some pictures whilst leaving the valley through the tunnel it started the update by itself while we were away. Because of that it had just enough data reception to do the update, which stranded us there, no power, no AC, and of course no driving. It was in effect broken down because of a saftware update. Now in an emergency situation that is a full on "no-go", and could have been life threatening in various cases without a doubt. In ours thankfully it wasn't, and we waited patiently with the windows down (so we could get out if the doors locked).

The point is that although humans are fallible, so are machines. The difference is that humans can learn to adapt without the need for a super computer AI to adapt to unknown situations.

So like it or not, humans will stay in the loop for a long while yet. And that is a good thing, considering they are also the same falliable humans that are making the technology in the first place.

So give them the tools to be augmented by technology, not impaired by it. In principle it's that easy.

Next time you go on a trip turn off auto updates.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

You missed the main point of my post.

Augmentation.

All technology is created to assist us, but not replace us.

There is a fundamental difference in principle and how things work because of it.

As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of all invention, and as such it is our "necessity" that changes the world. It's the same in that technology isn't good or evil, it's just a tool that does the will of the user. The point is that replacing us, or in this case taking us "out of the loop" does not always equate to a better product. Especially so if it is still in its infancy.

The other issue is "connectivity" in that there are certain systems that must function reliably without any connectivity.

For a Tesla example: While we were visiting Yosemite our MYP decided to do a 95minute software update. WIthout asking us at all to do so. It pestered us twice on the days previously which we delayed, and then we parked the car and got out to make some pictures whilst leaving the valley through the tunnel it started the update by itself while we were away. Because of that it had just enough data reception to do the update, which stranded us there, no power, no AC, and of course no driving. It was in effect broken down because of a saftware update. Now in an emergency situation that is a full on "no-go", and could have been life threatening in various cases without a doubt. In ours thankfully it wasn't, and we waited patiently with the windows down (so we could get out if the doors locked).

The point is that although humans are fallible, so are machines. The difference is that humans can learn to adapt without the need for a super computer AI to adapt to unknown situations.

So like it or not, humans will stay in the loop for a long while yet. And that is a good thing, considering they are also the same falliable humans that are making the technology in the first place.

So give them the tools to be augmented by technology, not impaired by it. In principle it's that easy.

Wait a minute. You were at Yosemite driving a Model Y and you live in Australia. Were you in a rental, and if so who rents Model Ys? I am guessing, now, that you were not able to (or didn’t think to) turn off auto updates. We took our Model Y to Yosemite last year as our first road trip with it and I was nervous the whole time, but I did not think to turn off auto updates. Had I gotten a reminder I would have.

 

[PilotPete]

Were you in a rental, and if so who rents Model Ys?

Depending on where, Hertz and Avis have both 3s and Ys. Some locations have both base and long range in both models. I just rented a M3 to drive from LAX and dropped off the next day at John Wayne Airport.

Sponsored