First off, you're saying AV companies share examples from repeated runs? What a truly shocking insight to absolutely no one. That's how you track improvement in AVs, repeating runs and comparing. There's no trickery involved in the fact you see runs that were repeated when almost all runs are repeated by design.
Second, what Tesla did is nothing like you described. Tesla lied about who was running the drive they showed. A human was driving when they claimed the human was only there for legal reasons. No one else has done that.
Maybe hold the "I told you so" for something you understand enough to actually tell anyone anything about.
> for something you understand enough to actually tell anyone anything about.
I work in computer vision and work at an automotive OEM. Left autonomous field specifically because it was fraudulent. Have many friends that helped stage fraudulent videos like the ones that Tesla/Zoox/Waymo put out regularly.
When you post a video of a “successful” drive, have the CEO tweet about it and say the car is driving itself, yet the same software version of your autonomous stack literally crashed on an earlier run, you’re committing fraud. If you imply via video that your AV can handle a certain type of driving scenario without issues, yet in the actual video your AV is relying on an ultra-HD map of that specific route that your company cannot conceivably collect for the majority of roads, you’re also committing fraud. If you think otherwise you’re drinking somebody’s Koolaid.
> When you post a video of a “successful” drive, have the CEO tweet about it and say the car is driving itself, yet the same software version of your autonomous stack literally crashed on an earlier run, you’re committing fraud
Right. Just like Steve Jobs holding an iPhone that crashed before the keynote is fraud.
Fraud is saying it's driving itself when a human is driving.
> If you imply via video that your AV can handle a certain type of driving scenario without issues, yet in the actual video your AV is relying on an ultra-HD map of that specific route that your company cannot conceivably collect for the majority of roads, you’re also committing fraud.
This is so utterly nonsensical I don't even know where to start. Driving scenarios are not fungible. Navigating around a stopped car in downtown SF is not the same as being able to navigate around a stopped car in Mumbai rush hour, or navigating around a stopped car in the middle of a California wildfire with 0 visibility and a fire roaring 10 feet away.
So when a video shows that the vehicle can handle a given situation and the vehicle handles it on video, the implication is not "we've now solved every variation of this situation to ever exist", the implication is "we were able to handle the situation you just witnessed".
I thought it ended at you not understanding EVs, but it's even worse: you don't even know what "fraud" means, and you clearly don't understand how bleeding edge technology is presented. That mentality is definitely more at home in the fossilized environment of an automotive OEM, but it must certainly be interesting to watch all that "fraud" translate into hundreds of thousands of miles on public roads and open betas with real riders... sour grapes much?
"The vehicle 'handles it' using technology, equipment, input and data that is not now, and will not, be used in your vehicle in any way shape or form. In fact our CEO will spend countless hours mocking our competitors for using it and strongly implying that we did no such thing."
Apple planned for the iPhone to do all those things. Tesla has never planned for their cars to do those things, and to "advertise" what their cars could and would do, they used a car that was not and is not one that you or I could ever acquire.
I am not talking about Tesla there, read before commenting.
I specifically call out Tesla as being completely fraudulent (and we're literally replying to their director of Autopilot say the same). They are not even in the same game as actual AV companies when our sensor stacks are worth more than the entire vehicle they claim as "FSD"
First off, you're saying AV companies share examples from repeated runs? What a truly shocking insight to absolutely no one. That's how you track improvement in AVs, repeating runs and comparing. There's no trickery involved in the fact you see runs that were repeated when almost all runs are repeated by design.
Second, what Tesla did is nothing like you described. Tesla lied about who was running the drive they showed. A human was driving when they claimed the human was only there for legal reasons. No one else has done that.
Maybe hold the "I told you so" for something you understand enough to actually tell anyone anything about.