471–480 of 658 posts
It's a fascinating video. Does anyone know of a similar video by Waymo, Cruise, Uber, etc? Love them or hate them its pretty cool Tesla put this video out at all. Certainly gives us all a lot to talk about.
This new video is at n00b level compared to that.
[1] https://embed.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_ca...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two issues, first: I thought fully autonomous driving was meant to be done by now? Second, don't Tesla & SpaceX have a reputation for being a terrible place to work, with Musk expecting everyone to be working as hard (or harder) than him, and firing people in weird and capricious ways.
>I thought fully autonomous driving was meant to be done by now? Musk was bullshitting when he made that prediction. Maybe he did it because he had bought his own bullshit. Personally I think what's more likely is that he was cynically conning people. In reality, I think no-one is anywhere close to fully self driving cars. I would be surprised if we saw fully self driving cars any time in the next 50 years. The whole…
It's a fascinating video. Does anyone know of a similar video by Waymo, Cruise, Uber, etc? Love them or hate them its pretty cool Tesla put this video out at all. Certainly gives us all a lot to talk about.
Compare Google's system from five years ago.[1] (at 7:42) This new video is at n00b level compared to that. [1] https://embed.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_ca...
Compare Google's system from five years ago.[1] (at 7:42) This new video is at n00b level compared to that. [1] https://embed.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_ca...
Compare Google's system from five years ago.[1] (at 7:42) This new video is at n00b level compared to that. [1] https://embed.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_ca...
Although I wonder which is more truthful. I bet Google’s demo takes significantly more computing power, was cleaned up for the demo, etc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go watch Elon's presentation Autonomy Day. He pointedly addresses it. Specifically, he shows an orders-of-magnitude chart, each point accompanied by a picture of a car presented at that magnitude of occurrence. At one extreme is "car" as they appear with most common frequency (in front of you, rear visible). At other extreme is "car" in an extremely unlikely occurrence (airborne, bottom view prominent). The system Te…
> Tesla has upwards of a million "full self driving" vehicles on the road now, all gathering video, all processing that data, all feeding what they learn & experience back to Tesla. I'm curious how you square this with the fact that humans learn to drive with intermittent sensory input from only two cameras plus some auxiliary sensors. Clearly, humans can extrapolate from very limited input. Why can't Tesla demonstra…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure that they "fixed" the dancing cars problem by applying a low pass filter to the data before sending it to the visualization, just so people would stop complaining about it. I think there's still a lot of jitter in the underlying data.
Seems like it would make more sense to model the inertia. Cars don't randomly accelerate at 100,000m/s/s in some direction they aren't pointed. Though they should have a model for detecting obstacles in the view regardless of inertia, because sometimes something really does appear in front of you in a thirteenth of a second. You could probably model inertia with n prior frames of probability fields.
What if they are hit by a truck? Maybe not 100,000 m/s^2 but if you assume that cars can't accelerate in directions they aren't pointed, you will be wrong at the worst possible time.