An article by Elon Musk this week's new weekly news Sunday spreads hunter-gatherer hunting by the media and industry over Tesla's self-driving car status.
Let’s first consider the goal of a self-driving Tesla and then get the latest Musk tweet.
Return the clock for about 7 months or more.
During Tesla's earnings call in October last year (that's 2019), Elon Musk expressed this about Tesla's situation with the & # 39; Vehicle Collecting & # 39;: "Despite tightening it. , it still seems that there will be at least a little early access to the show for a complete self-portrait this year ”(referring to“ this year ”means 2019, as the comments were made in 2019).
That exciting promise did not seem to bear fruit in 2019.
There is also an ongoing lack of evidence about what constitutes a "complete picture" of the type of communication drive since there is no definitive definition of these discriminatory statements and structures (not identifiable language or industry, certainly does not apply to the industry standards of self-driving cars, so it is a Musk-in-a-word, unmarked & # 39;
The only downside to the idea might be that Musk also suggests that Tesla & # 39; s self-reliant but requires oversight and interference at times, "which is part of the overall look.
Basically about self-driving, it is important to recognize the official standards defined by the independence of the SAE (Automobile Engineer Society) standard, if a self-driving car requires a human driver, a self-driving car. driving is said to be autonomous and not completely independent.
As Musk points out that Tesla's "comprehensive view" of driving capabilities will also require a human driver to monitor and be prepared to intervene, it is best to say that Tesla will be a government. independent so as not to let them go. The kind of self-driving car that is really independent.
That is why the use of the word "self" is not a good way to express it, as it then creates the illusion that the car will be independent or fully autonomous.
In addition, in some ways, the use of the word can go wrong by pointing out that a car wants to be completely autonomous (meaning that human driver is not needed, for whatever reason, for whatever reason), given to most people that the word "independent" itself carries the idea of being completely independent.
It may seem like a hair split to brush his teeth about self-service, but the word predicts a huge difference (see my coverage of this, using the link here).
What would make it clear to all parties would be for Musk and Tesla to easily adopt the use of independent standards as defined by the SAE's official standards, which I will explain in a moment.
On the one hand, please note that there are some critics of the SAE standard that say it is appropriate to replace them with more specific standards, however, while that will is difficult, however, the existing standards provide a framework for a more general approach. approves what constitutes (now) measurable standards of independence. So, anyone who can try to use that stigma to escape the passing of these standards is playing a kind of game, as it were, using the critics as a form of false defense that shakes their hands. .
Some argue that Musk and Tesla's dark words about power for FSD are not accidental or non-accidental. However, the assumption is that the term objective has deliberately looga intended to be lazy, allowing the company to take special.
In a sense, it can be likened to a political statement that attracts broader ideas and refrains from anything that might be of brass, providing maximum flexibility and what some would refer to as a wink-wink form of visible rejection.
However, following Musk's statement on that earnings call, he later revealed that instead of an earlier forecast of what was going to happen at the end of 2019 (which, yes, was blocked by him saying "still visible" in his initial claim), in contrast, the new target could be sometime in 2020.
Fans are likely to say that it is clear and obvious and it is obviously difficult to predict when this extremely difficult and renewable program, especially with life or death, can be helped in the car.
Others may respond to the point that this is a cricket game around the nut to get distracted, and maybe no peanuts are sitting underneath it, or that real dates may happen in 2021 or 2022, but to massacre and detain people have worked tirelessly to make the point of making history and then move on to date.
Recent Musk On Tesla FSD
Fast forward to the Easter weekend of April 2020.
Responding to a question posted on his twitter account about Tesla's latest FSD situation, Musk responded to the tweet: "The process is still good this year. Enforcement of the law is the biggest unknown.
For those who read tea leaves, again & # 39; good looks & # 39; in his talk.
Good looks mean something is going to happen "this year" or can be interpreted to suggest that at the moment things seem to be on the way, but he points out that there is a chance that it might not go any further, so late every year it is easy to say that to date has fallen slightly as has already been released, and can be indefinite date 2021.
There is again some uncertainty about what will even be delivered per week as the word "work" has a small meaning and brings back to the topic of what the full text and FSD actually contain.
Apparently, it is possible to introduce something that could be described as "operational" this year, beating the proposed promise, but still work may be far and far less than it might have been thought otherwise. brought. -powering powers.
It is a multi-word word with plenty of useful room for dark and loose translation.
Fans are likely to applaud his willingness to share the latest situation and stress that there is so much that anyone can say on Twitter. Don’t jump right and break the word, they can endure it.
Many in the media really looked like they had passed these Semantic panels and announced that Musk had revealed that Tesla's auto parts could be ready by the end of this year.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda, some critics say.
However, there is a tricky feature that shows you a few tweets that may give a reason.
Like driving a long, open road on a highway where you can see an object that is not yet focused, the tweet contains a reference to the permit, doing so remotely.
As part of the ongoing submissions on Tesla and Musk, note that there have been many events in which the company and its CEO have made various speeches on regulatory aspects, including the idea that the rules are supposed to be impairs communication goals. Tesla (and, in theory, the rest of the automotive industry as well).
Maybe it's time to close the deal is far looga called consent law, especially as it applies to Tesla, and see if she was using the word in the opening statement, we can take on the subject.
Before you do, let's take a little bit in order to identify different levels of self-run vehicles and independence.
Car Driving Standards
The actual self-driving cars are AI self-driving cars and there is no human assistance during the driving process.
These non-driving vehicles are considered Level 4 and Level 5, while a vehicle that requires a human driver to share driving efforts is usually considered Level 2 or Level 3. Driving-sharing vehicles are classified as independent, common. consisting of several automated products called ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems).
There is still no true self-driving car at Level 5, which we still don't know even if this is possible, and how long it will take us to get there.
Meanwhile, efforts to Level 4 are slowly trying to get a bit of chaos through trials very precarious optional, although there is a dispute about whether the test should be allowed a se (we all are pigs life-or -the death of Guinea as a testament) happening on our roads and streets, some point out).
Since autonomous cars require human drivers, the adoption of these types of vehicles will not be much different from conventional driving, so there is not much new to discuss this topic (although, as you will see in a moment, the following points are generally applicable).
Car independent, it is important that the public needs to be warned of a difficult style and trends, which is that there are drivers of human remains attach the video in their interactions and lying on Level 2 or Level In 3 cars, we all need to avoid being misled into believing that the driver can take away his sense of drive by being a self-driving car.
You are responsible for driving actions, regardless of how much you & # 39; ll be automatically thrown at Level 2 or Level 3.
Self-Driving and Musk Based Rules
Level 4 and Level 5 real-world driving, there will be no human driver involved in the driving process.
All residents will be passengers.
AI is driving the car.
Tesla & # 39; s existence is not Level 4 and not Level 5.
Most of them classify them as Level 2 today.
What a difference that makes
Well, if you have a true self-driving vehicle (Level 4 and Level 5), only AI driven, there is no need for a human driver and there is really no connection between AI and human driver.
In the Level 2 car, the human driver is still in the driver's seat.
In addition, the human driver is considered to be the party responsible for driving that vehicle.
The issue that causes everyone to get confused is that AI seems to be able to drive Level 2, and, on the other hand, can't, so the human driver should still be alert and act as if they were driving.
With that being an important setback, given the risk of everything that Tesla will deliver if a human driver is still needed, this means "Driving" will be enhanced. at Level 2 or maybe at Level 3.
But, it's certainly not Level 4 as well as Level 5, assuming that Tesla's power will require the existence of a human wheelchair driver.
However, pay attention to the other part of this discussion, the authorization section.
Take a look back at Musk's twitter account, which says: "The dynamic still looks good this year. Enforcement of the law is the biggest unknown.
Given that the tweet was sent during Easter weekend, we should think that we are ready to go down the rabbit hole to continue meaning.
Keep in mind that we do this with this handicap:
- The nature of the so-called full image and the FSD are shocking
- The proposed or estimated date of entry is scary
- Sections & # 39; Legislative Consent & # 39; it is also shocking
It's a logical triplea of nebulousness, or maybe even cubed nebulousness.
However, these are what some argue.
We all generally see government and regulation as a hindrance to development and production (I can't say this is necessarily true, just to be seen as normal).
A somewhat opposite of control is specifically expressed or at least a maverick like Tesla and a maverick like Musk, and appears to be equally supported fans maverick's love dhadhankan maverick's dhadhankiisa with.
Could the use of legislative bureaucracy be a viable strategy that demonstrates that if the technical product remains difficult to complete, it will be easier to change it by assuming that the rules are the source of delays and not the actual scams. of street art?
In essence, get there information, one that has not yet been invited, but is still sitting ready, and when or if the time is right, it enters the world in its entirety.
In fact, this makes sense.
How can a person or person continue to push the delivery dates, and do so without being overly disturbed by the next set of delays?
Well, that's easy, just blame it on the paper-pushing charges public.
The beauty of such excuses seems to be true in many ways, in that the public is predicting that the rules will often slow down and that many new "innovations" have emerged only with the passing of existing laws and regulations ( for example, some might argue strongly that Uber and Lyft have done so, in light of the existing rules for using taxi and auction day-to-day requirements).
So, by placing your wallet in the noise control law and quietly filtering from time to time, the theater is set to summon a boogieman, when needed, if needed.
If that day comes, you can pull off the permit, and make flowers an act of anger, along with inciting the rabbinical supporters to "go with the man," buying the necessary space to breathe and creating some saving grace while you are hidden from angry anger.
Of course, it may not be needed otherwise and may never be broadcast.
Or, boards may be needed, and like Break Glass fire alarms, at the right time and in the right place, vibration systems can start.
There's the other side of the coins as well.
It may indeed be the case that the regulatory authorities can see, therefore, that the subject of confidentiality still deserves to be protected and prepared for its use.
Here's part of the rubbish that:
· Why should Tesla and Musk specifically believe that they will be a legal challenge or hindrance to their FSD or their complete image or whatever “it” is in their power?
It does not appear to be specific yet.
Intellectually, consider this post as well:
· If they can predict that there is a control issue, what are they doing now to anticipate these approaches?
In other words, it does not seem prudent to know that if you know the knowledge of the rules you will not read them, or by preparing your technique to adapt in the same way or in some way intended to achieve regulatory requirements or by working hand-in-hand with the care partners to see if there are ways to adjust or change looga what they claim.
And like a deluge:
· Why is it not designed for all people to see what is missing between the requirements of the rules and what the expected technology will deliver?
It seems like a practical and good way to get a head-on from a problem or a delay by going through it, instead of waiting for things to “unfold” and then suddenly announce And, oh, they can't go on because of a regulatory obligation.
Indeed, this is what Musk said in July 2017: “AI is a rare case that we need to work on legitimizing rather than reacting. Because I think by the time we react to AI rules, it's too late. ”
Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
This also raises the viewer that the rules seem to always look bad, but it seems that Musk is actually saying that the rules may be better guaranteed, at least in terms of the rules. based on AI (which includes self-driving cars, by the way).
There may be a legitimate reason for the required legislative approval that Musk & # 39; s recent tweet suggests that it will be a state of misery or worse. challenging as an unusual burden
This brings us further to Musk's words on the topic requiring AI related rules. In his Twitter account on February 17, 2020, Musk expressed it this way: "All the organs that are developing AI should be customized, including Tesla."
If your tweet is taken to face value, it seems that you might be worried about the legal approval of Tesla's powers, and instead, it is basically on the wish list of something that needs to be done and done correctly.
Now, you can still debate whether or not the rules themselves have been targeted, but this is a debate that needs to be continued and especially in a governmental way, due to the life-or-death issues involved . driving, both autonomous and completely autonomous.
There are many ongoing efforts on regulatory aspects related to self-driving vehicles, including federal, state, local, and local & # 39; major production lines that will further strengthen such standards. inevitable to impose some kind of rules.
In that case, what is Tesla or Musk's beef, which would have been easier to spot now, and would be able to find or re-design those efforts.
Is it technical?
Or, they must believe that it takes a long time to be done, in which case, they may suggest how the task should be accelerated, and still hope to maintain the needed protection and welfare of their people. expect.
Tesla and Musk proponents are likely to argue that aspects of regulatory approval are something that should not be achieved in meeting Tesla's self-driving goals.
Well, if that is the case, it would seem helpful if the fully defined list of none of the unnecessary rules is recognized, or if the rules may be overly simplistic or superfluous and therefore suspend or disrupt progress, explain what this is.
In July of 2017, Musk said: "I'm meeting a very AI-driven & # 39; driven, and I think people are really worried."
In addition, in July 2017 comments included: "We continue gambaleyda sound, but people see the robots in the street and killing people, do not know how looga response, because it would seem to be consistent structural. ”
Judging from his knowledge, there is public criticism that we are concerned about self-driving cars that will run on highways and highways, and may cause traffic accidents, killing people, and thus predicting Musk's behavior. with. words can predict such a power.
It may be that well-designed rules and the implementation of those rules can contribute to cooperation or to a degree in Musk's tone of voice, but the same frustration does not obscure the rules as you think the party party seems to be going. to disrupt matters, at least not unless you tell them exactly what this is like in the case and take active action as appropriate.
Here I am not discussing the nature or the need for regulation (that is an ongoing debate) in general, and I am just pointing out that the rules take into account automotive, social, wellness, etc. .
In the case of AI, some believe that we do not adequately regulate existing laws to allow the advancement of AI to bring about our daily existence, while others claim that existing laws will hinder the adoption of AI. For more on these meat issues, see my FutureLaw 2020 link here).
Wherever you go, the time you go into the game and start participating in AI and discussion rules, do so now, and help guide the future of AI in our community.
There are many questions that remain unanswered, including those here for any real or imagined hobgoblins.