111–120 of 264 posts
Ok, so can we agree to get rid of billboards?
The idea to remove all billboards for teslas is really funny. I would say that this billboard hack means anyone could install a banner on their balcony to get a tesla to swerve onto a neighbour’s house. However, I believe this will be fixed in a later update.
There are a lot of similar failure modes in humans. Sometimes they're are used for good, like making drivers slow down: https://www.insider.com/optical-illusions-3d-crosswalk-drivi... But other times they cause crashes: https://imgur.com/a/kYr94
>There are a lot of similar failure modes in humans. there are lot of similar failure modes in individual humans. The difference is individual driver errors are not correlated, a bad reflection tricks a few humans at once instead of tens of thousands of cars running the same model. There is significantly more brittleness in a fleet of cars than in a population of humans, because the human population has diversity in…
Ok, so can we agree to get rid of billboards?
The idea to remove all billboards for teslas is really funny. I would say that this billboard hack means anyone could install a banner on their balcony to get a tesla to swerve onto a neighbour’s house. However, I believe this will be fixed in a later update.
Maybe. I hope so. But from my understanding, context is the hardest part of computer vision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouting fire in a movie theater is not a good example of unprotected speech, and as such it's not a good place to start reasoning from in deciding of other speech is unprotected. Otherwise, you start banning core political speech like advocacy against the draft, just like the since-overturned case that bad example comes from.
The fact that that example became well-known due to the awful decision in Schenck v. United States does not mean that it's not a good example of speech that ought not be protected. Speech that is false and intentionally causes a panic should not be protected.
It might be an example for speech that ought not be protected, but it's not an example of unprotected speech grounded in either the preexisting case law or any precedential rule in Schenk that is still operative, so it's not a useful touchpoint for analysis. It's pure unsupported dicta sandwiched between two well-referenced points of law in the decision.
> Speech that is false and intentionally causes a panic should not be protected.
Intent is not an element of the well-known hypothetical described in Schenk, nor the even more abbreviated form derived from it raised in this thread.
States just need to start mandating LIDAR for any level of autonomous certification, in the same way we finally figured out seatbelts were the minimum level of safety for passenger retention.
While I agree with you on mandating it, a LIDAR "only" gives you a 3D point cloud. Great for detecting if an object is in your way - but it cannot read a stop sign, you still need a camera system for that - so they still have to harden it against this hack (and who knows how many to come).
True, but LIDAR should make that detection more robust.
For example, if a stop sign is on the same plane as the object that surrounds it, that's a strong signal that it is not a real stop sign but rather a projected or displayed one.
That's much harder to detect with computer vision alone, especially if they're dealing with hackers who can test it with a real car and continually iterate on it to find different ways to trick it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know. In general I think you're going to need some balance between requiring certain outcomes and requiring certain specific implementation details. It might be possible to make an automobile out of sufficient thick and squishy parts that it could pass reasonable crash safety tests without having a seat belt, but it's still not ridiculous for regulations to require that automobiles have seat belts. (I have no…
Well, lidar is just a stand-in for the depth perception humans already do. It is absolutely valid for regulators to require that the systems on an autonomous car do depth perception, and provide a standard to prove that the system works well. I suspect that right now, ML based approaches to depth perception would not pass the test to standards we would like, in practice requiring lidar. But, this would also provide a…
You either detect a full-stopping-distance's worth of clear road through reliable (non visual) ranging with dense enough samples to preclude wheel-catching voids ... or you will continue to run into "objects" which slipped through your classifier.
I can accept reduction in this margin (e.g. in dense traffic flow) when it is first shown to work with margin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know. In general I think you're going to need some balance between requiring certain outcomes and requiring certain specific implementation details. It might be possible to make an automobile out of sufficient thick and squishy parts that it could pass reasonable crash safety tests without having a seat belt, but it's still not ridiculous for regulations to require that automobiles have seat belts. (I have no…
Well, lidar is just a stand-in for the depth perception humans already do. It is absolutely valid for regulators to require that the systems on an autonomous car do depth perception, and provide a standard to prove that the system works well. I suspect that right now, ML based approaches to depth perception would not pass the test to standards we would like, in practice requiring lidar. But, this would also provide a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that that example became well-known due to the awful decision in Schenck v. United States does not mean that it's not a good example of speech that ought not be protected. Speech that is false and intentionally causes a panic should not be protected.
>Speech that is false and intentionally causes a panic should not be protected. 70% of facebook posts and newspapers instantly banned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet you don't have to look far from here to see lots of people claiming that a social network is violating freedom of speech if it censors or in any way limits the distribution of false claims that are intended to and likely to cause people to take dangerous actions.
Freedom of speech is meant to be respected by government. Private businesses aren’t obligated to respect anyone’s free speech.
Corporations should never pretend to be the guardians of truth. Bias will just spew from there about whats supposedly real and whats supposedly fake.