Live data from Hacker News

Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Machine Learning in Computer Systems Research

sigarch.org

11–20 of 105 posts

Re: Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Machine Learning in Computer Systems Research

#11
post #3

> Driverless long-haul trucks are apparently just a few years away, and the main worry now is not so much the safety of these trucks but the specter of unemployment facing millions of people currently employed as truck drivers. No, no they're not. We have some lane tracking in good weather etc., but we are still decades (or more) away from full level-5 autonomy that would make drivers behind the wheel unnecessary. Bu…

Waymo's test drivers have to take control once every 5,000 miles.

Re: Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Machine Learning in Computer Systems Research

#12

Cute title but the post didn't really address either reasonableness or effectiveness, but mostly claimed that the potential has not yet been realized. It's a pet peeve of mine to see these hackneyed joke titles referencing famous papers, "considered harmful" is another case in point. Let's just stick to descriptive titles.

It is a modern disease of CS and related areas. They think it is better to be "cute" than descriptive, as a way to attract attention.

Re: Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Machine Learning in Computer Systems Research

#14
post #11
post #3

> Driverless long-haul trucks are apparently just a few years away, and the main worry now is not so much the safety of these trucks but the specter of unemployment facing millions of people currently employed as truck drivers. No, no they're not. We have some lane tracking in good weather etc., but we are still decades (or more) away from full level-5 autonomy that would make drivers behind the wheel unnecessary. Bu…

Waymo's test drivers have to take control once every 5,000 miles.

That is impressive, but isn't Waymo driving on some limited number of pre-set routes?

It would be nice if there were some credible, unbiased sources that were predicting when full level 5 might be viable.

Edit: Maybe a somewhat credible opposing view. Though he may be crabby about his department being drained of talent, and so not unbiased: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/robotics-lab-uber...

Re: Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Machine Learning in Computer Systems Research

#15
post #10
post #3

> Driverless long-haul trucks are apparently just a few years away, and the main worry now is not so much the safety of these trucks but the specter of unemployment facing millions of people currently employed as truck drivers. No, no they're not. We have some lane tracking in good weather etc., but we are still decades (or more) away from full level-5 autonomy that would make drivers behind the wheel unnecessary. Bu…

> but we are still decades (or more) away from full level-5 autonomy Decades? Are you really sure? This assumption seems quite uninformed to me. The Grand Challenge was 12 years ago, from then we evolved from Level 1 to Level 3. Back then there was no data, computing power wasn't available as today, chips (&sensors) can be designed an built within a few months or even less these days for far less money. Machine Learn…

It max 5 years or even less, if the problem is in engineering the solution. But if the problem is in underlying maths in building Level 5, then surely its decades

Re: Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Machine Learning in Computer Systems Research

#16
"[...] I mean something that causes people to wonder whether computer architects, programmers, compiler writers or operating systems builders will soon be joining truck drivers and limo drivers in the unemployment line! "

How comparable are these jobs?

Re: Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Machine Learning in Computer Systems Research

#17
post #14
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo's test drivers have to take control once every 5,000 miles.

That is impressive, but isn't Waymo driving on some limited number of pre-set routes? It would be nice if there were some credible, unbiased sources that were predicting when full level 5 might be viable. Edit: Maybe a somewhat credible opposing view. Though he may be crabby about his department being drained of talent, and so not unbiased: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/robotics-lab-uber...

Unfortunately, there are no unbiased sources that have knowledge of the state of the art, since it exists inside a small handful of companies. The best outsiders can do is speculate.

Personally, I very much doubt we're more than a decade away from cars-drive-way-better-than-people levels of tech. Whether that means you'll be able to buy one is another question.

Re: Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Machine Learning in Computer Systems Research

#18
post #14
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo's test drivers have to take control once every 5,000 miles.

That is impressive, but isn't Waymo driving on some limited number of pre-set routes? It would be nice if there were some credible, unbiased sources that were predicting when full level 5 might be viable. Edit: Maybe a somewhat credible opposing view. Though he may be crabby about his department being drained of talent, and so not unbiased: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/robotics-lab-uber...

[deleted]

Re: Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Machine Learning in Computer Systems Research

#19
post #14
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo's test drivers have to take control once every 5,000 miles.

That is impressive, but isn't Waymo driving on some limited number of pre-set routes? It would be nice if there were some credible, unbiased sources that were predicting when full level 5 might be viable. Edit: Maybe a somewhat credible opposing view. Though he may be crabby about his department being drained of talent, and so not unbiased: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/robotics-lab-uber...

Waymo does a lot of driving in suburban Austin and suburban Mountain View. Their claim is that this is more difficult than most driving, since stop-and-go traffic with intersections every quarter-mile and pedestrians around is a more complex environment than highway driving.

This claim is almost certainly true for the topic at hand, since long-haul trucking is the highway-est of highway driving. Outside of the topic at hand, my own extremely subjective opinion is that they chose some of the tamest suburbs possible (I have significant experience in the Bay Area, SoCal, Austin, and Pittsburgh).

Re: Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Machine Learning in Computer Systems Research

#20
post #10
post #3

> Driverless long-haul trucks are apparently just a few years away, and the main worry now is not so much the safety of these trucks but the specter of unemployment facing millions of people currently employed as truck drivers. No, no they're not. We have some lane tracking in good weather etc., but we are still decades (or more) away from full level-5 autonomy that would make drivers behind the wheel unnecessary. Bu…

> but we are still decades (or more) away from full level-5 autonomy Decades? Are you really sure? This assumption seems quite uninformed to me. The Grand Challenge was 12 years ago, from then we evolved from Level 1 to Level 3. Back then there was no data, computing power wasn't available as today, chips (&sensors) can be designed an built within a few months or even less these days for far less money. Machine Learn…

Not even decades; never. But it has nothing to do with computer science; it's an energy problem. But we will see self-steering sailboats, gliders, and maybe bicycles. Although I doubt the bicycle would be worth it. That's all if we survive a probable nuclear war. The people doing ML with farming will be much more successful. And on the lack of ML in CS: it is to be expected in one of the most monopolized sector today. Riscv will change that. We can probably get orders of magnitude more energy efficiency out of our silicone.
Post reply on HN