They are free to peer review the test and do it with all the stuff enabled.
That is how science works.
But I doubt they will, since this is an inherent problem with using camera vision only. Not with the software of the car. And they most likely know it.
I will point out, I don’t think “peer review” means repeating the test, it means more generally pointing out issues with the science, right? By that definition, sounds like that’s what they’re doing. That doesn’t make the criticisms inherently valid, but to dismiss it as “they’re free to do their own tests” because “that is how science works” seems dishonest.
Peer review usually means repeating the test and comparing results with the original paper. If peer review can’t get the same results, it means that the first study was faulty or wasn’t described accurately.
Humans also operate on “camera vision” only in that we see visible light and that’s it. Adding lidar to the system should improve performance over human capability, but camera vision with good enough software (and this is way easier said than done) ought to be able to match human capability. Whether Tesla’s is good enough in FSD mode I have no idea because I have no intention to ever buy one and testing this in a rental is uh… risky, given that they tend to have onboard cameras.
Of course, if Tesla’s “FSD” branded driver assist suite is actually good enough to beat this test, I reckon Tesla would be quick to prove it to save their own reputation. It’s not that hard to reproduce.
These are extremely EXTREMELY reliable at detecting physical obstructions. There is no reason but stupidity or being cheap to not implement redundancy into a safety system. This isn’t about implementing “good enough” software. This is about a design choice forced on Tesla engineers by a complete idiot that doubles down on his stupidity when faced with criticism by actually intelligent people.
Not just good enough software. Also good enough cameras and good enough processing power. None of which curenty match humans so this is not a valid argument.
The camera only system is just worse at everything.
They are free to peer review the test and do it with all the stuff enabled.
That is how science works.
But I doubt they will, since this is an inherent problem with using camera vision only. Not with the software of the car. And they most likely know it.
I will point out, I don’t think “peer review” means repeating the test, it means more generally pointing out issues with the science, right? By that definition, sounds like that’s what they’re doing. That doesn’t make the criticisms inherently valid, but to dismiss it as “they’re free to do their own tests” because “that is how science works” seems dishonest.
Peer review usually means repeating the test and comparing results with the original paper. If peer review can’t get the same results, it means that the first study was faulty or wasn’t described accurately.
Humans also operate on “camera vision” only in that we see visible light and that’s it. Adding lidar to the system should improve performance over human capability, but camera vision with good enough software (and this is way easier said than done) ought to be able to match human capability. Whether Tesla’s is good enough in FSD mode I have no idea because I have no intention to ever buy one and testing this in a rental is uh… risky, given that they tend to have onboard cameras.
Of course, if Tesla’s “FSD” branded driver assist suite is actually good enough to beat this test, I reckon Tesla would be quick to prove it to save their own reputation. It’s not that hard to reproduce.
https://www.adafruit.com/product/4058?gQT=1
These are extremely EXTREMELY reliable at detecting physical obstructions. There is no reason but stupidity or being cheap to not implement redundancy into a safety system. This isn’t about implementing “good enough” software. This is about a design choice forced on Tesla engineers by a complete idiot that doubles down on his stupidity when faced with criticism by actually intelligent people.
Not just good enough software. Also good enough cameras and good enough processing power. None of which curenty match humans so this is not a valid argument.
The camera only system is just worse at everything.