If Google can't do it with its massive resources and sensors don't ever expect a Tesla to perform better than this.
It's time for Elon to pay the piper and refund all users who were hoodwinked into purchasing FSD. Especially people who's cars are nearing end of life.
While I do get your point and have my own doubts, I fail to see how this is a fair argument:
> If Google can't do it with its massive resources
The companies behind the SLS had and have an enormous amount of resources. Yet, they have failed to even launch it.
Arianespace has a huge amount of resources and experience too. Yet, when asked, they said landing a rocket couldn’t be done. Then, back-pedalling, that it was pointless and would never make any economic sense.
Yet, SpaceX has developed three generations of rockets (Falcon 1, 9 and heavy), builds them, launches them, iterates on them, lands them, reuses them, and is now working on a fourth rocket (SuperHeavy).
They have also created 4 different rocket engines and are working on two others.
Honestly, where are Boeing and Arianespace?
Another example? Microsoft, their incredible wealth of resources and superior position falling flat on their face with smartphones.
Funnily enough, Google getting the greatest share of the global smartphone OS market, despite having had no real experience with operating systems, consumer hardware, or licensing operating systems before.
Kodak, which had some of the first patent on digital camera sensors, going pretty much extinct despite their massive resources and market position.
Xerox, failing to ever enter the personal computer market despite designing what everyone else would copy for the next 10 or 20 years.
Sure, the amounts of resources and experience seem to help, a lot, but it also certainly doesn’t seem to help reliably predict any outcome.
> Yet, SpaceX has developed three generations of rockets (Falcon 1, 9 and heavy), builds them, launches them, iterates on them, lands them, reuses them, and is now working on a fourth rocket (SuperHeavy).
What does SpaceX have to do with Tesla? They're owned by a billionaire with his attention split, but otherwise are structured differently, are in different industries, and most likely have different cultures.
The cult of worshipping a single person has got to stop.
The parent's point is less about Elon and more about the fact fact all the resources in the world means nothing if you do not have the right team, culture and incentives to pull it off.
Google took a completely different approach and relies heavily on pre-mapped environments. Tesla has several orders of magnitude more vehicles, more data, and a more diverse set of data given their cars are in many different countries. It's not implausible to think that Tesla could arrive at FSD faster than Google.
The idea that data will somehow magically translate into FSD is laughable. It relies in the delusion that we just need to train neural networks with the proper data and then we all can go to sleep.
There are many issues with Tesla's autopilot that are completely unrelated to the amount of data they have, and they will not be fixed with more data, and having more data will not make it easier to fix it. At this point, I would argue that the discussion about who owns more millions of miles of data is completely irrelevant.
It isn't laughable at all. The real problem of FSD is the ridiculous long-tail of scenarios in the real-world that you simply cannot account for or manage well. At this point, Tesla has a huge upper hand because every vehicle in their fleet can constantly collect and provide new semi-labelled training data every time there is a user disengagement or an unforeseen action taken by the driver.
Tesla has built out amazing infrastructure to capture extensive amounts of "hard" examples from their fleet, turn them around into labeled data for training very efficiently and then utilizing simulations to further broaden the distribution of such quirky long-tail events in their training-set. In the absence of AGI, this is a very effective "brute-force" approach and they have a huge upper hand over every other player in this space.
I say all of this even though I am very skeptical that anyone will achieve L5 self-driving with where the state of things are today. But Karpathy and team are very pragmatic and making lots of good decisions coupled with excellent engineering and infrastructure development.
I can't see how you can content Waymo has more data, they had around 600 cars on the road last year. Sure they have some more sensors but Waymo only operates in select cities and select routes, the diversity of the data is very limited. They won't have seen scenario's like a snow storm for example since they've only been testing in CA and AZ. Meanwhile Tesla has a robust framework for collecting clips of specific scenario's as needed by shipping a small model to roughly match the scenario.
Simulation is important for sure, and Tesla even talked about that as much. But you can only simulate the scenario's that you've thought of, it can't replace real world data, which again Tesla has several orders of magnitude more of than Waymo.
As for the comments about Dojo I think they're unfounded. Tesla has already proven that they can create their own custom chip and have shipped it to hundreds of thousands of cars. I don't see any reason to think they can't get the system running in the next year or so. But even if they can't do that in time they still have NVIDIA to fall back on. Elon even said in the talk that maybe it might not work out, and if that's the case they can always buy a solution.
As I understand it, they just started selling the "fsd capable" stuff a few years ago. Are any of those cars nearing end of life? That would be an even greater cause for concern IMO.
To be fair, a lot of people right now would willingly pay $5k for the features that are available now, especially if they spend a lot of time on long highway trips.
The price keeps going up, though: if you bought it right now, it wouldn't be $5K, it'd be $10K. It's possible Tesla's driver assistance systems are better than anything else on the market in their current incarnation, but that's getting to be a pretty big ask.
I'd be surprised, I've heard (and can not immediately substantiate) that they are generally very reliable vehicles. I guess part of it is that they just don't have as many mechanical points of failure.
Fools and their money. Like most every expensive car, Teslas are luxury vehicles and fashion statements. People buy them because they are cool. That product was delivered. As for future features, nobody should believe Telsa's advertising any more than we do Microsoft's advertising about how the next version of Windows will solve all our computing problems. The hamburger never looks as good as it does in the commercial. Demanding such things post-purchase, after the test drive demonstrates the deficiencies of the real product, is simply buyers remorse.
I'm pretty sure the USA has consumer protection laws against deceptive advertising, so a company can't just say whatever they want when selling a product in order to convince someone to buy it. Maybe Tesla protected themselves with clauses in the purchase contracts that absolves them from having to pay the purchaser back in the event of their own failure to deliver, but I think a FSD purchaser might have a case just based on Elon's verbal promises that have failed to come true over and over again.
As was I. Consumers had an opportunity to test drive the wanted feature and find it lacking, or read reviews of the same. Tesla hid nothing. If customers want to spend money on hope for the future then that is their right. They paid for hope and that is what they got.
They deceptively claimed that for additional money the customers' cars would be enhanced in the future with FSD. They then made that claim again each time they failed to deliver. They continue to make this claim and people are trusting it.
But they lied a lot though, right? "Cross county automous summon in 2017" "Coast to coast autonomous drive in 2018" "Tesla driverless taxis in 2019" are a few examples. One may hold the view that Elon musk can make grandiose statements about solving AGI and nuclear fusion in 1 hour and make futuristic statements about that, but when does it go from projection to lying?
But then the hamburgers used to make food ads are made from plastic and most definitely fake as food goes soggy and off when subjected to lamps used in studio's.
while it is disappointing that the true FSD may never materialize on cars that paid for it nearing EOL. The FSD beta 9 looks pretty impressive and from some videos i've seen have made some very difficult driving decisions.
Actually FSD works better than waymo. It hasn’t fulfilled promises of robot taxis but it’s the best and most advanced self driving system in the world, not to mention the most widely deployed, and so accusations of blatant dishonesty don’t really hold water.
Of course this ignores that super cruise is considered safer and better on the same tasks that it's allowed to do as Tesla FSD by third party analysts. The difference is GM is less willing to allow it to be enabled for dangerous beta driving unlike Tesla which clearly doesn't care about consistency or safety.
The ev1 was a pretty good car for it's time. It had a lot of fans. Battery tech got better. An electric car is theoretically much simpler than an ice car.
And when you look into thoose reports - the only reason they rank Super Cruise higher is because it can only be used on a very limited number of roads, and uses a camera to detect awareness.
FSD uses a camera, and works on all roads - and is dramatically better then supercruise.
source - test drove both, bought the tesla because of how impressed I was with supercruise.
Google is struggling to get hardware integrated with their self driving solution. Retrofitting cars with self-driving sensors is not easy, and Google does not have the scale yet to convince OEM partners to retool assembly lines for the Waymo fleet.
Source for them struggling? All the hardware upfitting is done by Magna, one of the biggest names in auto manufacturing, who are also a Waymo investor. There’s a reason they chose the Jaguar I-Pace which is also manufactured by Magna.
if they don’t have fsd then they are just an electric car company. if they are just a car company their stock should be at 50 dollars right now. hence why he’d never admit it and instead will double down with his robot that will never materialize
Nonsense. Go look at some of the models by different analyst. Even if you include no software revenue at all, you can justify a much higher stock price then you suggest. Some never include anything for FSD in the first place.
And even if they don't reach FSD, they could still generate a lot of software revenue from Autopilot features.
And beyond that Tesla still does more then final assembly of EV and selling them to dealerships.
Their current assist packages are already incredible even though they come short of full self driving.
EDIT: In case my point isn't clear, if your position is predicated on the idea that anything less than full self driving is worthless garbage, you should know that is a pretty hot take. If you are instead having an emotional reaction and feel deceived I don't know what to tell you, you might have a very valid point but that doesn't appear to figure into evaluating whether a stock is under or over priced.
It's time for Elon to pay the piper and refund all users who were hoodwinked into purchasing FSD. Especially people who's cars are nearing end of life.