New Tesla Model Y L launching this weekend

[shandering]

There is an enormous difference between "allows a supervisor" and "requires one".

Let me m ake it more clear. Level 4 allows the requirement of a supervisor. A system that requires a supervisor is level 4 as long as you are only supervising safety and not a missing feature that the car does not have.

That means FSD is realistically level 4 at this point since there is no reasonably missing feature at this point.

Sponsored

 

[Dark-Fx]

Let me m ake it more clear. Level 4 allows the requirement of a supervisor. A system that requires a supervisor is level 4.

It does not. You are misinterpreting it.

 

[shandering]

It does not. You are misinterpreting it.

That's not correct. In section 8.2 it expressly says that a system is not level 2 because it requires a supervisor for safe operation or on road testing.

The reason for this, (which you clearly don't understand) is SAE levels are not performance metrics. They are the intent for a system to operate in a certain way. Otherwise no system would ever be level 4 or level 5

Even though the intent of FSD 13 was to software update into a L4 system, it was not one. It did not have emergency vehicle behaviors, school bus behaviors, perform minimum risk maneuvers, and the car did not park.

FSD v13 robotaxi build added those features and v14 is the first time they came to consumer cars

If you replace a missing ability of the car (like in v13 when you have to manually pull over for emergency vehicles) that is level 2. If the car has all abilities (within reason) but it doesn't perform them well enough, that's level 4.

if tesla had added every driving behavior early on, they would have taken heat for attempting to test level 4 software with consumers.

 

[Jeremy3292]

That's not correct. In section 8.2 it expressly says that a system is not level 2 because it requires a supervisor for safe operation or on road testing.

The reason for this, (which you clearly don't understand) is SAE levels are not performance metrics. They are the intent for a system to operate in a certain way. Otherwise no system would ever be level 4 or level 5

Even though the intent of FSD 13 was to software update into a L4 system, it was not one. It did not have emergency vehicle behaviors, school bus behaviors, perform minimum risk maneuvers, and the car did not park.

FSD v13 robotaxi build added those features and v14 is the first time they came to consumer cars

The outcome isn’t what you think it is though. Tesla doesn’t want to accept liability so they say it is L2 even though the design intent is L4. So when people on this forum say Tesla isn’t L4, you’re arguing a semantical point, bc what we are saying is Tesla has not achieved L4 in reality bc they won’t classify it as L4 themselves and accept liability. So in practicality it’s an L2 system bc the liability rests with the driver NOT Tesla. Hence the big SUPERVISED word Tesla goes out of their way to add to FSD.

 

[shandering]

The outcome isn’t what you think it is though. Tesla doesn’t want to accept liability so they say it is L2 even though the design intent is L4. So when people on this forum say Tesla isn’t L4, you’re arguing a semantical point, bc what we are saying is Tesla has not achieved L4 in reality bc they won’t classify it as L4 themselves and accept liability. So in practicality it’s an L2 system bc the liability rests with the driver NOT Tesla. Hence the big SUPERVISED word Tesla goes out of their way to add to FSD.

Tesla doesn't have to accept liability. The issue is that you can't test level 4 on roads without consumers physically having to do work. At that point it is also probably illegal in some states to work without pay

Some states require disengagement reports and then other states there are no laws (you can't test L4 at all).

Then you have the issue that it would be harder to give consumers a L2 product when other consumers are testing the same software under L4

 

[Jeremy3292]

Tesla doesn't have to accept liability. The issue is that you can't test level 4 on roads without consumers physically having to do work. At that point it is also probably illegal in some states to work without pay

It’s not L4 if they don’t accept liability. It’s not self driving if they don’t accept liability. You don’t need to continue to argue semantics of SAE standards on here. If I can’t fall asleep it’s not self driving. You can call it L4 if it makes you feel better, but it’s not self driving if I have to pay attention. Bc if I didn’t have to pay attention, then it would be self driving!

 

[shandering]

It’s not L4 if they don’t accept liability. It’s not self driving if they don’t accept liability. You don’t need to continue to argue semantics of SAE standards on here. If I can’t fall asleep it’s not self driving. You can call it L4 if it makes you feel better, but it’s not self driving if I have to pay attention. Bc if I didn’t have to pay attention, then it would be self driving!

By that logic L3 is not self driving because you have to pay attention. And close attention at that

That's also false that with level 4 (unsupervised) it means you can sleep. Level 4 can have a small operating domain (only on freeways) which could require you to drive to freeways in order to engage. From there it would be illegal to sleep as you can't get out of the driver's seat.

 

[NinjaWrap]

This guy REALLY wants Tesla to be Level 4 even though it’s not

if it was Level 4, Tesla would be bragging about it

 

[shandering]

This guy REALLY wants Tesla to be Level 4 even though it’s not

if it was Level 4, Tesla would be bragging about it

because level 4 is not legal for consumers to have in all 50 states

There are laws in development which would have nationwide rules for self driving

Presumably L2+ systems should all be testing under level 4

 

[shandering]

Levels of autonomy is not a supervision or liability issue at this point. It's a legal issue of a safety monitor doing "work" and having to be paid for it. It's a legal issue that about 13 states or something have no laws allowing level 4 autonomy

 

[NinjaWrap]

go argue with grok for a while

 

[Polestar3]

They're almost like a bot. Like there's no talking with, it's all like conditional response output.

100%
In another thread this tried to say that Tesla's phantom braking was a safety feature

 

[shandering]

100%
In another thread this tried to say that Tesla's phantom braking was a safety feature

I never said that. I said lack of phantom braking does not indicate safety

There are people that hate FSD v14 because you can no longer set the max speed and there are more braking events that would not happen with v13.

The safety difference is quite large

 

[mkhuffman]

in other news, Speed Queen has a new washer/dryer combo launching next week,

Seriously? I am a huge Speed Queen fan. I get the joke if that is what you are doing. If not, link it as I might get one.

 

[r2fb]

A system that requires a supervisor is level 4 as long as you are only supervising safety and not a missing feature that the car does not have.

You're wrong, here is the SAE diagram directly from their website at sae.org:

No implementation of Tesla FSD can drive itself without ever asking the "supervisor" to take over driving in certain cases. Therefore it's L2.

Sponsored