Lucid Intends to Deliver First Level 4 Autonomous EVs for Consumers with NVIDIA

Tesla, too, thought they had the right “future ready” hardware for their FSD. They’re on v4 of hardware now. I don’t know minimum version for FSD at this point, but since Lucid doesn’t even have their L2++ solution, no idea how they think they can confirm the current hardware in Gravity will do anything except hands free drive assist. That’s all I expect in Gravity that are delivering now. And I don’t expect it until next year regardless of what Lucid says.
 
So I know the Air wasn’t mentioned in the announcement, but they did mention at several occasion when developing the car that the Air was Level 3 ready :

We have developed Lucid DreamDrive to be among the most advanced ADAS to ever be offered to consumers," said Dr. Eugene Lee, Senior Director, ADAS and Autonomous Driving, Lucid Motors. "By prioritizing safety and updateability, DreamDrive also sets the stage for offering increasingly sophisticated driver assistance features. We have ensured that the Lucid DreamDrive hardware and software platform not only offers a full suite of Level 2 features, but is also Level 3 ready, which means we'll be able to quickly add features and functions over-the-air throughout the lifetime of Lucid Air and for future Lucid models."

And :

The DreamDrive technology suite supports 19 key safety, driving, and parking assist features that will be available on Lucid Air immediately upon start of production, with another eight features expected to be available later via over-the-air (OTA) updates. Additional DreamDrive capabilities to enable Level 3 driving in certain conditions are also in development.

So I do not feel like the current capacity of DDP are currently maxed out, so I would be disappointed if Point-to-point Hands-on is not shipped at some time on current airs if Hands off point to point is considered L2++.

I mean a Tells Model 3 with HW3 (which I believe to be way lower specs than DDP) can do it (yes it’s far from perfect and should not be called FSD).
Agreed on this post.

However, the current trend of the entire software industry, magnified recently with the AI bubble, has been generalization of models to be catch-all solutions. Only very recently have these new models started to specialize in areas to be wrapped and advertised as "one model" still. Even then the tendency is still generalization.

The implications are two-fold. Newer models demand vastly large computing resources to even be loaded, much less executed, and companies assume the underlying hardware continues to improve in performance fast enough for nearly "infinite" scaling.

The reality of the situation is that hardware has plateaued significantly in recent years with the only breakthrough being in the number of cores on a single die (aka workers to do computer things). Truly specialized models tend to be a fraction of the size with far better performance that can often be tailored further with recent efforts to "prune" the excess to drop total size and compute required to run the models. Unless Lucid has broken from the pact in this regard (highly unlikely), then their models have likely quickly consumed the planned bandwidth required for core features through a generalized model. Unless major breakthroughs occur for non-silicone based RAM and CPUs (highly unlikely given the extreme R&D nature plus sheer issue of scaling and adoption), the current and upcoming hardware will not meet the demands of even a theoretically working generalized model.

I would hope no one is holding their breath or expecting anything beyond what has been delivered. Tesla should be considered the forefront of the industry in terms of capability (despite any flaws). Waymo and other autonomous companies are unlikely to scale given the systems attached to those cars are highly expensive and tailored in addition to highly limited to a few geographical metropolitans.
 
I'm a bit disillusioned by Lucid's DDP for Air. It's been adequate after the latest Drive Assist update, but only adequate given their promises from before.

I have recently leased a Hummer EV SUV 3x (yes a Hummer...) as my wife's daily driver and we were quite pleased by its capabilities. Oddly, I am quite impressed by GM's Super Cruise, much more than I thought it would be given the promise of DDP in the Air. Super Cruise, despite not having a display that shows cars around you in real-time, smoothly maintains the vehicle in the lane, follows traffic, and even warns you of being in construction zones. Interestingly, and a surprise to me, it changes lanes on its own given traffic conditions without any driver input and makes changes more smoothly than the Lucid.

I never expected GMC, a company I would not consider to be "tech forward" to have a superior implementation of L2 assist compared to the Lucid and Super Cruise came standard without an uncharge like DDP. Of course, the Hummer is the antithesis of Lucid's mi/KWh efficiency imperatives but that's a different matter!
 
Agreed on this post.

However, the current trend of the entire software industry, magnified recently with the AI bubble, has been generalization of models to be catch-all solutions. Only very recently have these new models started to specialize in areas to be wrapped and advertised as "one model" still. Even then the tendency is still generalization.

The implications are two-fold. Newer models demand vastly large computing resources to even be loaded, much less executed, and companies assume the underlying hardware continues to improve in performance fast enough for nearly "infinite" scaling.

The reality of the situation is that hardware has plateaued significantly in recent years with the only breakthrough being in the number of cores on a single die (aka workers to do computer things). Truly specialized models tend to be a fraction of the size with far better performance that can often be tailored further with recent efforts to "prune" the excess to drop total size and compute required to run the models. Unless Lucid has broken from the pact in this regard (highly unlikely), then their models have likely quickly consumed the planned bandwidth required for core features through a generalized model. Unless major breakthroughs occur for non-silicone based RAM and CPUs (highly unlikely given the extreme R&D nature plus sheer issue of scaling and adoption), the current and upcoming hardware will not meet the demands of even a theoretically working generalized model.

I would hope no one is holding their breath or expecting anything beyond what has been delivered. Tesla should be considered the forefront of the industry in terms of capability (despite any flaws). Waymo and other autonomous companies are unlikely to scale given the systems attached to those cars are highly expensive and tailored in addition to highly limited to a few geographical metropolitans.
Just curious... What models are you talking about?
 
I don’t give a schiit about self-driving. And I am not that old. I enjoy driving myself. Especially great driving cars. That’s just me. If I wanted to be driven, I would take Uber, I can afford it. Or a bus. My Lucid was preceded by two back to back Teslas with FSD. So….

Having said that, I have realized over time that too many people, to my surprise, love being driven, so there is definitely a market for that stuff. I am open minded , so I can always adapt
Imagine sitting in the back seat space of a Lucid with Surround Pro immersive though being driven home from a nice dinner with too much wine....
 
Tesla, too, thought they had the right “future ready” hardware for their FSD. They’re on v4 of hardware now. I don’t know minimum version for FSD at this point, but since Lucid doesn’t even have their L2++ solution, no idea how they think they can confirm the current hardware in Gravity will do anything except hands free drive assist. That’s all I expect in Gravity that are delivering now. And I don’t expect it until next year regardless of what Lucid says.
99% of car manufactures believe that using only visible light sensors is foolish, only Tesla thinks it's an acceptable solution. Visible light alone is dangerous (it is impacted by rain, shadows, sunsets/sunrises, fog, etc.) and there is no reason not to cross check it with other sensors like radar, sonar, and lidar. If it wasn't for their political clout, I suspect Tesla's approach would be banned. It still won't surprise me if it does get banned at some point.

All that is to say that v4 of Tesla's hardware is still woefully inadequate compared to the hardware on everyone else's cars that are capable of L2+ and higher.
 
All that is to say that v4 of Tesla's hardware is still woefully inadequate compared to the hardware on everyone else's cars that are capable of L2+ and higher.
I agree it's inadequate but tell me another company on the consumer side that has gotten anywhere close to the point to point experience Tesla has been delivering for quite some time now? FSD certainly has flaws but credit where credit is due they're further ahead on a system solely using cameras compared to other cars that have all the bells and whistles of sensors etc.

Visible light alone is dangerous (it is impacted by rain, shadows, sunsets/sunrises, fog, etc.) and there is no reason not to cross check it with other sensors like radar, sonar, and lidar.
You haven't seen the error messages that pop up on the Lucid when the LiDAR sensor gets the slightest bit of rain on it. Waymo, etc. are not allowed to operate in rain or fog so having all the bells and whistles of sensors doesn't appear to be doing them any favors over Tesla (at the moment).
 
I agree it's inadequate but tell me another company on the consumer side that has gotten anywhere close to the point to point experience Tesla has been delivering for quite some time now? FSD certainly has flaws but credit where credit is due they're further ahead on a system solely using cameras compared to other cars that have all the bells and whistles of sensors etc.


You haven't seen the error messages that pop up on the Lucid when the LiDAR sensor gets the slightest bit of rain on it. Waymo, etc. are not allowed to operate in rain or fog so having all the bells and whistles of sensors doesn't appear to be doing them any favors over Tesla (at the moment).
Just because Tesla is an outlier when it comes to risk tolerance, does not mean that their approach is acceptable. If other companies were willing to take such risks with their customers, there would be a lot more systems out there capable of Tesla's level of self-driving.

Don't get me wrong, most of the time the Tesla system is fine. It's just a matter of how willing you are to accept the times when it "gets it wrong".

The Honda Legend (Japan market only) had level 3 back in 2021.
 
I agree it's inadequate but tell me another company on the consumer side that has gotten anywhere close to the point to point experience Tesla has been delivering for quite some time now? FSD certainly has flaws but credit where credit is due they're further ahead on a system solely using cameras compared to other cars that have all the bells and whistles of sensors etc.


You haven't seen the error messages that pop up on the Lucid when the LiDAR sensor gets the slightest bit of rain on it. Waymo, etc. are not allowed to operate in rain or fog so having all the bells and whistles of sensors doesn't appear to be doing them any favors over Tesla (at the moment).
Tesla FSD killed dozens getting to where they are. Testing in public roads is immoral. Hyping up Robotaxis when more than a decade away is lying by the CEO. It’s not puffery, it’s LIES!
 
Just because Tesla is an outlier when it comes to risk tolerance, does not mean that their approach is acceptable. If other companies were willing to take such risks with their customers, there would be a lot more systems out there capable of Tesla's level of self-driving.

Don't get me wrong, most of the time the Tesla system is fine. It's just a matter of how willing you are to accept the times when it "gets it wrong".

The Honda Legend (Japan market only) had level 3 back in 2021.
I trust Waymo more than Tesla. Even if Musk says he solved it, won’t believe the liar. Imagine putting your life in a Tesla Robotaxi with no redundancy.
 
Tesla FSD killed dozens getting to where they are. Testing in public roads is immoral. Hyping up Robotaxis when more than a decade away is lying by the CEO. It’s not puffery, it’s LIES!
I don't agree with how Tesla advertises the system but for an L2 ADAS system it has to be the best on the market compared to what everyone else is offering. I'm by no means a fan of Tesla nor Elon but do you think anyone would be racing for L4 autonomy this quickly if it wasn't for them? Probably not.

Also, humans kill dozens on the road every day. Almost 40,000 people died on the roads last year in the US alone so let's not try and paint a narrative that it's just FSD killing people.
 
Just curious... What models are you talking about?
Models as in computer models. These are typically mathematical models. They get different labels based on the latest jargon and/or underlying technique used.

These are some common models:
- Physical models (simulate individual pieces of the problem)
- Statistical models (use distributions to simulate the system individually or systematically)
- Vision models (specialize in image and video analysis to identify objects, events, etc.).
- LLM models (language based models based on a variety of techniques and interacted with via text)
- ML models aka Machine Learning Models (usually have a reward function to direct training and execution of the model to incentive a particular behavior)
- RL models aka Reinforcement Learning Models (specialization of ML models that not only have a reward function but also value functions and a few other details that allow "learning" independently from pre-defined answers)
- AI models aka Artificial Intelligence models (a catch-all term and rebranding of LLM, ML, and RL models)
- Generative AI models (specialize in creating images, videos, and/or text)

In this case, Lucid would be developing visual models at a minimum. They could also be developing physical or statistical models to enhance the outputs of the visual models. Finally, they should be layering a final model to take actions on the information produced from those models. That could be RL, ML, or something else entirely such as a system of pre-defined rules and actions.
 
99% of car manufactures believe that using only visible light sensors is foolish, only Tesla thinks it's an acceptable solution. Visible light alone is dangerous (it is impacted by rain, shadows, sunsets/sunrises, fog, etc.) and there is no reason not to cross check it with other sensors like radar, sonar, and lidar. If it wasn't for their political clout, I suspect Tesla's approach would be banned. It still won't surprise me if it does get banned at some point.

All that is to say that v4 of Tesla's hardware is still woefully inadequate compared to the hardware on everyone else's cars that are capable of L2+ and higher.
I wasn’t saying it was adequate. I am saying Tesla didn’t know what hardware they needed before they had a solution - so they had to update hardware.

The idea that Lucid’s hardware suite is “future ready” is absurd. No one can say that with certainty as they don’t have the future solution/capability.

My expectation with Gravity is hands-free, supervised at some point. This does NOT mean auto lane changing or being able to drive from my house to the highway and get off automatically wherever I want. I don’t think Lucid is close to that in any way and there’s no reason to believe it’s a few updates away. I think the press release is similar to the typical crap Tesla sends out.

Lucid already said hands free was coming to Gravity at end of 2025. Let’s see if it does.

Like it or not, agree with the means or the company or not, an FSD Tesla is pretty darn capable. But it took YEARS to get there for Tesla. I was an FSD beta tester very early on (when they were giving driving scores, etc). It was terrifying.

Again, not saying Tesla tech is THE solution, just saying Lucid shouldn’t make claims about L2 and sensor capabilities when they don’t know their solution.

Now, someone will say “Maybe Lucid knows and they’re testing it now…”. Maybe, but in CA, they have to do so by registering vehicles and the only ones I see registered are part of the Nuro and Uber partnerships.
 
Tesla FSD killed dozens getting to where they are. Testing in public roads is immoral. Hyping up Robotaxis when more than a decade away is lying by the CEO. It’s not puffery, it’s LIES!
not to mention FSD sucks. They can't even give it away. Their latest tactic is to remove Autopilot features to force you into buying FSD even if you just want lane keep assist.
 
Also, humans kill dozens on the road every day. Almost 40,000 people died on the roads last year in the US alone so let's not try and paint a narrative that it's just FSD killing people.
Yet the Model 3 has no better (and is worse than several ICE vehicles) in death rate of drivers (deaths per million registered vehicles).

Audi A4 - 7
Mercedes C-class 9
Tesla M3 15

Now we can argue the types of drivers and miles driven and the possibly small data set but the cars do not seem demonstratively safer than their peers.

 
Models as in computer models. These are typically mathematical models. They get different labels based on the latest jargon and/or underlying technique used.

These are some common models:
- Physical models (simulate individual pieces of the problem)
- Statistical models (use distributions to simulate the system individually or systematically)
- Vision models (specialize in image and video analysis to identify objects, events, etc.).
- LLM models (language based models based on a variety of techniques and interacted with via text)
- ML models aka Machine Learning Models (usually have a reward function to direct training and execution of the model to incentive a particular behavior)
- RL models aka Reinforcement Learning Models (specialization of ML models that not only have a reward function but also value functions and a few other details that allow "learning" independently from pre-defined answers)
- AI models aka Artificial Intelligence models (a catch-all term and rebranding of LLM, ML, and RL models)
- Generative AI models (specialize in creating images, videos, and/or text)

In this case, Lucid would be developing visual models at a minimum. They could also be developing physical or statistical models to enhance the outputs of the visual models. Finally, they should be layering a final model to take actions on the information produced from those models. That could be RL, ML, or something else entirely such as a system of pre-defined rules and actions.
I know very well what models are. I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science. I also have some knowledge of AI models, specifically LLMs.

I was asking specifically what are these "catch-all solutions models" you were referring to.
 
Back
Top