WILL TESLA EVENTUALLY KILL ME?

[JBee]

I can agree that fog and smoke probably require a different frequency to penetrate them and improve ranging, but blizzard and heavy rain physically limit the vehicles ability to react and stop as well, so being able to see through them doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the car can react in time to make it useful.

We are already talking edge cases here where most driving miles do not occur. Most people try to avoid driving in those conditions in the first place if they can, and if they still do are subjecting themselves to extra risk Tesla might not be comfortable with providing FSD for in the first place, regardless if they could do it or not. The reward for achieving this level of adverse condition FSD driving is likely to be so minimal, developing it would not improve the vehicles ability to sell. In fact I doubt there are many people that would not purchase a Tesla because it didn't have FSD at all. Until there's reasonable demand for it I doubt it will happen until the hardware and software development cost is profitable.

Sponsored

 

[charliemagpie]

If a stationary or moving object can be viewed through a solid wall using Wi-Vi, I can, using my super power of being a sci-fi fan, reckon that AI using similar techniques, can see anything just by measuring light photons.

AI and computing power IMO now move faster than our predictive habits.

We were nearly half way through the genome project, and some experts, by objectively measuring progress/computing speed were calling for it to end. At the pace they are going, It would take 10,000 years they said.

Elon Musk started all this a dozen years ago, and he needed 1000 technological steps to get there.. amazing vision.

From a non-technical person, and I am probably wrong, this FLIR business to me typifies the pace of change that even the best are left behind in a blink of an eye.

I think it is important to ponder. We are crossing the Rubicon. The speed of change is approaching light speed.

Just came to mind, and went on a rant lol Apologies if off topic.

 

[ecotrials]

I was never really a fan of the idea of getting rid of fusing radar with visual sensors. In my book they should scan everything that is useful and affordable, I mean they use ultrasonic all the time anyway. They could even use some of the SpaceX phased array tech from Starlink to do a solid state scanning Radar.

There's also a possibility that Teslas new deal with Samsung uses ToF cameras instead, that can measure distance to each pixel sensor with a global shutter, illuminating the need for scanning LIDAR and costly FLIR sensors to provide better distance whilst providing standard vision based feeds.

There are various threads discussing the options for and against.

What is the intention here, to cause alarm that there is a problem with motorbikes or certain lights, or discuss if radar should be reenabled? If the former, then I'd also have to point out that the cameras, and the distance between mounting positions on the Tesla itself will suffice to resolve range even to a single point or light source, especially so as it approaches. The ranging does not, to the best of my knowledge, use the distance between the lights of the other road vehicle at all to do this. It just doesn't need to, and makes it way more complicated than it has to be, if it at all it could reliably be done by assuming some distance between lights to begin with.

The video seems to be heading in the direction of general discreditation, but not by using any technical fact. More is simply not always better, and anyone who does sensor fusion will tell you this too.

I believe you meant to say eliminating, not illuminating.

 

[Trucky]

Foresight autonomous is an Israeli company that uses a blended Infrared, Thermal, and Visual camera mix that is pretty cool…

 

[JBee]

I believe you meant to say eliminating, not illuminating.

Thx. Fixed.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

As a motorcycle owner this video is about autopilot being blind to certain motorcycles as it approaches from behind. This is, to say the least most concerning. Could be anecdotal evidence but the video poster has a good point about cameras being blind to distance in some cases. I know that statistically AP is safer but I for one don't want to be one of the few that slipped thru the statistical cracks. There is a good argument from Sandy Munro for "Forward looking infrared" (FLIR). Maybe there is a place for FLIR on the front of the car/truck? I once watched a video of an early radar equipped Tesla that stopped safely for a flock of ducks on the road in dense fog. The cameras could never pick this up nor would our own eyes.

I do not know the source and watched the video on silent, but our FSD visualization has never missed an obstacle of any kind in the conditions we drive in. I say visualization because we rarely use AP or FSD. It is clear that the youtuber is pro radar so I see this as a biased video. If having radar and cameras produces a conflict that the system has to resolve then time is lost and you could still have a problem. As Dan O'Dowd has proven you can manufacture an incident if you want to or are an idiot.

 

[SwampNut]

That YouTuber is a whiny annoying idiot, and the two videos of his that I watched contained specific factual errors. Therefore, I would not believe anything he says at all. One was a review of a bike I ride, and he screwed up a couple of details on it (actual specs not opinions).

On top of that, he also claimed that there was a taco shop near him that had the best tacos ever. In Canada. Come on.

 

[Crissa]

Fortnine is wrong here.

1. The two accidents have not yet been proven to have Autopilot or TACC or FSD Beta - all different program stacks that he mashes together - specifically activated.
2. We don't know if the drivers were overriding or speeding or the conditions other than time and vehicle in the crash.
3. Safety stats are already corrected for miles on highway: only miles when Autopilot could be activated are counted.
4. Radar cannot tell you how far objects are, only the relative speed of echos
5. Radar cannot identify soft objects at all.
6. LiDAR also cannot identity objects, color, warnings.
7. Autopilot has never, ever anywhere, in any prior implementation, didn't require a pilot ready to take control. Air and Water.
8. Autopilot disengaging in a crash - crashes after disengagement are still counted as Autopilot crashes.

His sources are wrong and he's wrong. Very disappointing.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

Fortnine is wrong here.

1. The two accidents have not yet been proven to have Autopilot or TACC or FSD Beta - all different program stacks that he mashes together - specifically activated.
2. We don't know if the drivers were overriding or speeding or the conditions other than time and vehicle in the crash.
3. Safety stats are already corrected for miles on highway: only miles when Autopilot could be activated are counted.
4. Radar cannot tell you how far objects are, only the relative speed of echos
5. Radar cannot identify soft objects are all.
6. LiDAR also cannot identity objects, color, warnings.
7. Autopilot has never, ever anywhere, in any prior implementation, didn't require a pilot ready to take control. Air and Water.
8. Autopilot disengaging in a crash - crashes within several seconds of disengagement were counted as Autopilot crashes.

His sources are wrong and he's wrong. Very disappointing.

-Crissa

Nice list but it needs a little polish:

4. Measuring distances to other objects is actually what it is best at as a system. It can also velocity and angle vector of other objects, depending on scan resolution also size, shape etc.
5. Define "soft". Weather radar measures rain droplets, and it can detect birds, humans etc depending on the wavelength used and the objects reflectance to that wavelength. There's even dedicated radars for aeroecology.
6. LIDAR can detect objects, albeit with lower resolution than vision. There are also colour LiDARs.

I agree that the video is not an accurate representation of reality.

 

[SwampNut]

Yeah that’s was a pretty good summation, but two small points. RADAR absolutely can measure distance and very accurately. Any reflective energy detector like ultrasonic and light can also. And with the proper frequencies it can detect humans that are approaching or going away from the RADAR unit. Just maybe not if they are at a static distance, or moving across the beam.

I've worked with video and RADAR systems from Axis which are specifically made to ID and track humans in large spaces. UWB RADAR can see through objects too, like foliage. And get this...it can detect breathing and heart rate.

AP on other vehicles has never been 100% hands off, but in something like a boat it's commonly assumed to be ok to walk away from the helm. Difference is, you can be in the ocean and not see another boat for a day, but a car can go from safe to crashing in a second. People have to realize that--even me. I am on AP 98% of the time and sometimes find myself a little bit less aware than I should be.

 

[firsttruck]

....
AP on other vehicles has never been 100% hands off, but in something like a boat it's commonly assumed to be ok to walk away from the helm. Difference is, you can be in the ocean and not see another boat for a day, but a car can go from safe to crashing in a second. People have to realize that--even me. I am on AP 98% of the time and sometimes find myself a little bit less aware than I should be.

Is it legal to operate a ship/boat on unmonitored autopilot when ship/boat is in harbor area or other areas with a lot of traffic?

 

[SwampNut]

Is it legal to operate a ship/boat on unmonitored autopilot when ship/boat is in harbor area or other areas with a lot of traffic?

I don't think so, not directly anyway. I have a lot of boat training and experience, not a full master's license, and I can't say I remember everything. So it's hard to fully know. But it would absolutely fall under the same rules that cover aircraft; you always have to maintain sufficient watch to avoid a collision. The COLREGS are really flexible, and also very carefully avoid the use of "right of way." Every captain is always responsible for avoiding a collision. How you do that is open. Hell you can have an open contain, but not be drunk.

After a collision, everyone's actions and responsibilities as to give-way and stand-on vessels will determine how much each screwed up. So it's a very different environment from cars.

unmonitored autopilot

This may be pedantic, but what does "unmonitored" mean? Maintaining watch can be done by scanning the horizon regularly, even far from the helm. You don't need to be AT the helm. Many sailors walk off and do tasks, change sails, etc.

 

[firsttruck]

I don't think so, not directly anyway. I have a lot of boat training and experience, not a full master's license, and I can't say I remember everything. So it's hard to fully know. But it would absolutely fall under the same rules that cover aircraft; you always have to maintain sufficient watch to avoid a collision. The COLREGS are really flexible, and also very carefully avoid the use of "right of way." Every captain is always responsible for avoiding a collision. How you do that is open. Hell you can have an open contain, but not be drunk.

After a collision, everyone's actions and responsibilities as to give-way and stand-on vessels will determine how much each screwed up. So it's a very different environment from cars.



This may be pedantic, but what does "unmonitored" mean? Maintaining watch can be done by scanning the horizon regularly, even far from the helm. You don't need to be AT the helm. Many sailors walk off and do tasks, change sails, etc.

I meant "legal to operate a ship/boat on unmonitored autopilot when ship/boat is in harbor area" to mean that human pilot must be there overseeing every second of operation of the autopilot.

 

[SwampNut]

I meant "legal to operate a ship/boat on unmonitored autopilot when ship/boat is in harbor area" to mean that human pilot must be there overseeing every second of operation of the autopilot.

I attempted to answer that. I understood the question. I'm not sure what part of my answer doesn't match for you. Pretty sure there's no direct specific requirement, and it depends on what you mean by "oversee." Pretty sure you could be on the bow and let the AP do its thing. But if you crash, you're fucked.

 

[Crissa]

AP on other vehicles has never been 100% hands off, but in something like a boat it's commonly assumed to be ok to walk away from the helm. Difference is, you can be in the ocean and not see another boat for a day, but a car can go from safe to crashing in a second. People have to realize that--even me. I am on AP 98% of the time and sometimes find myself a little bit less aware than I should be.

To walk away from the helm is to violate the safety rules for it, though. Criminal negligence.

-Crissa

Sponsored