271–280 of 658 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you compare both? Computers can process millions of objects and things all at the same time, with a error margin than any human being would love to have.
It doesn't matter how many objects a system can process if it can't recognize what they are or which ones are actually important, like say, the truck crossing in front of you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t there already a mounting amount of statistics of accidents of self driving cars vs manual ones and the difference is night and day that the self driving ones are statistically safer?
The problem is the datasets are incompatible. Tesla's numbers are very impressive until you realize that it will currently only engage in scenarios which are less prone to accidents across the board. As the number of situations where self-driving kicks in increases to include more complex environments, it's likely the numbers will shift.
That's why it takes years to enable city level (L2 and maybe L3 in rush hours) driving.
At the same time it really looks like Tesla will enable it this year, as Elon's predicted timelines are getting shorter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all. Self-driving cars cannot yet safely navigate complex or unusual scenarios. The human backups in test cars still have to take over with good regularity. That's not something you'd see if it were anywhere close to ready. Even with all their data, there aren't enough training examples of every situation. Deep learning models also have a tendency to be pathologically wrong in rare but completely unpredictable…
> Not at all. Self-driving cars cannot yet safely navigate complex or unusual scenarios. That's assuming accidents are caused by complex and unusual scenarios instead of humans being inattentive during routine tasks. If machines fail at complex tasks but fail safely then that's not an argument against self-driving cars being safe, it's only one about their limited usefulness.
They don't, not at the moment. The software detects the situation is outside its capability space and says "jesus, take the wheel!".
For all practical intents and purposes the only reasonable way to interpret the current self-driving car statistics is to treat every single human intervention as a would-be accident. That rate is somewhere in the 1 per 10000 km ballpark. That's - for now - orders of magnitudes worse than human drivers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course I care, it's just in my experience it's much easier for a company to provide any kind of benefits when the company has money for employees. Before 2008 when I was working at Google, we were just getting more and more fun stuff all the time, and it seemed like it's never ending. I was together with about 200 people in the Zurich office. After the stock price went down, although we just had a hiring stop, the…
Sure, but having worked in a number of different environments and having a family, a work culture that is willing to support me is very important. Tesla and SpaceX don't seem to have that at all.
At the same time Zurich is small, and many more men go to work there than women, so dating was so hard that I didn't have a real private life anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The system isn't AI based... It's currently based on static programming. This is why a development team would have to think of every possible scenario that could happen on roads to make self driving cars really work. You'd have to ask all kinds of wild questions too like: "What if kids played a prank and re-painted road lanes on a highway at 50MPH?" "What if a sand storm happened?" "What would the car do if a tire bl…
> than your home computer can handle, much less the components in Tesla cars. Ehm a recent Tesla has very powerful specialized hardware, developed in-house, which is much more powerful than a commodity home PC with expensive GPUs. You might want to do some basic research before you make such claims... > The system isn't AI based... It's currently based on static programming A large neural network is used to make many…
Yes, but they need a process in place to insure that that is true, and a process in place that insures that is true with each new update. They are remarkably cagey with statistics about AutoPilot.
Elon claims that Autopilot is currently much safer than human driving, yet the only statistics released are biased comparisons between Autopilot miles, which are almost exclusively on highways, and general auto statistics (where crashes occur most frequently off highways). If Elon really wanted to show the software effectiveness of current Autopilot, he could release the crash statistics of customers who purchased Autopilot and customers who did not, as many people have requested of him. He has thus far refused to.
It still strikes me why so many people are still against a future with self driving cars. Sure, people throughout history are scared of change & new tech. But if you look at this video and compare the amount of stuff the camera catches AND processes, with the things you are seeing & processing, it's really hard for me to see me being better at it than a computer. The reality of driving (as a human) is that most of it…
Lol. This is the kind of comment that I don't expect to see in hackernews, but then again it's about Tesla, so all reasonableness goes out the window. > if you look at this video and compare the amount of stuff the camera catches AND processes, with the things you are seeing & processing, it's really hard for me to see me being better at it than a computer. Such a handwavy argument is worth exactly squat. What does t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no evidence that computers are any better at driving than humans That's a vacuous statement. Evidence would be a deployed self-driving fleet. At which point it would be mission accomplished and we wouldn't be discussing this. Now if you want theoretical considerations instead of evidence, then consider the lower reaction times of machines.
> then consider the lower reaction times of machines Meanwhile, Teslas run into the backs of car carriers because they only recognise the car it's carrying and not the truck bed extending behind it. It might react faster, but it needs to identify the danger first and up until now, it's much worse at that in many situations. Yes, you're right, once it's safer, it's safer. That makes your statements just as vacuous as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Show me a self-driving car functioning in the middle of a blizzard and we can start talking. Southern California and the weather it experiences is a poor representation of what is required for self-driving to replace humans.
Isn't that asking for too much? Most humans can't drive safely in blizzards. And unlike self-driving cars, many humans are overconfident in their abilities. If a self-driving car recognizes dangerous conditions (poor visibility, malfunctioning sensors, etc), it can simply stop. It seems as long as these machines are safer on average than humans, they're worth deploying.
Sure they can. During snow squalls, accident rates obviously go up (especially if the roads are icy or if it's the first one of the season), but most drivers are good at assesing risk and take appropriate actions.
Importantly, they have the ability to decide that it's worth the risk to go out on the roads to pick up Sally from daycare (for example). In any case, if the car computer decides it won't drive, do you really think people aren't going to drive the car manually so that Sally can come home for the night? Of course they will. And they'll be fine.
Have you ever been on the freeway during white-out conditions before the ploughs have gotten a chance to come by? People slow down, turn on their hazards if necessary, and if the road markings aren't visible, naturally form two lanes instead of three (straddling the lanes). In snowy climates, a simple snow squall is something to talk about, but not stop you.
It still strikes me why so many people are still against a future with self driving cars. Sure, people throughout history are scared of change & new tech. But if you look at this video and compare the amount of stuff the camera catches AND processes, with the things you are seeing & processing, it's really hard for me to see me being better at it than a computer. The reality of driving (as a human) is that most of it…
Show me a self-driving car functioning in the middle of a blizzard and we can start talking. Southern California and the weather it experiences is a poor representation of what is required for self-driving to replace humans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I thought fully autonomous driving was meant to be done by now? That is not what Elon predicted at Autonomy Day last April. He thought they would be feature-complete by the end of 2019, which is to say, that all the basic code paths necessary for best case city driving would be functional. If you've done software development, you understand that getting to "feature-complete" is different from "code-complete", which…
He said a million self driving vehicles would be on the streets a year from FSD day. To try to say the hardware for FSD is now present in 1M vehicles (which I doubt) is disingenuous to the insinuation Elon made that FSD is right around the corner. They're not meaningfully closer to FSD today than they were three years ago. Somewhat closer? Sure. A few feet on a journey that's a few miles though.
Turns through intersections is another area where Tesla's current implementation needs a lot of help (read: can barely do it at all) but should be within range soon given where they are at. And lane splits in city streets is definitely something the Tesla implementation is going to need to get better at before really making it door-to-door.
It's a very exciting, even historic time for self driving.
But yeah, taxi fleets are a ways out. There's a turn in the road just a 1/2 mile from my house where my Model 3 gives up every time.