Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Andrej Karpathy (Tesla): CVPR 2021 Workshop on Autonomous Vehicles [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 214 posts

Re: Andrej Karpathy (Tesla): CVPR 2021 Workshop on Autonomous Vehicles [video]

#181

Post by nickik »

justapassenger wrote: post #157
nickik wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radar is the technology that is actually shipping in millions of cars. Lidar is future tech that is not practically to deploy in millions of cars as of now. There is absolutely 0 chance they could just 'put in lidar' from now on so for what he has to do its not relevant.

When was last time you looked at LIDAR tech? It's already cheap enough that it can be easily deployed in millions of cars.

Hi-def 360 LIDAR that companies like Waymo or Aurora are absolutely not ready to put into millions of vehicles for a price that makes it anywhere close to reasonable.

Multiple companies that have announced Lidar have later removed it for the cars.

The Lidar that are actually currently deployed that you can 'just' get from suppliers is of the not of the same quality and we have yet to actually see real high volume cars with 360 Lidar on any true mass market car.

Re: Andrej Karpathy (Tesla): CVPR 2021 Workshop on Autonomous Vehicles [video]

#182

Post by ketamine__ »

dang wrote: post #169
ketamine__ wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[censored by dang]

I didn't even see this comment before you edited it. Please don't pull tricks like this.

Tricks? You detached a perfectly valid thread. Kathpathy only responded to this thread with a shallow dismissal and none of the other critiques. That should tell you something.

Re: Andrej Karpathy (Tesla): CVPR 2021 Workshop on Autonomous Vehicles [video]

#183

Post by locuscoeruleus »

aimkey wrote: post #102

What an annoying charlatan. Karpathy is a brilliant computer vision engineer, but he has let his expertise in that subfield cloud his judgement on achieving the overall goal of autonomous driving. Musk and Karpathy have been dead wrong about LIDAR for years. Remember Musk making the absurd claim of a million Tesla robotaxis by 2020? I think most hilarious is that both Karpathy and Musk claim the LIDAR systems are too…

> Yet autonomous aircraft still do not exist.

Well, that's a truth with modifications [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2uc98EEPqE

Re: Andrej Karpathy (Tesla): CVPR 2021 Workshop on Autonomous Vehicles [video]

#184

Post by nickik »

aimkey wrote: post #93
01100011 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fallacy here is that the scale of the neural network used by Tesla is sufficient to capture the problem of driving given enough training. There is no guarantee that a reasonably priced neural network can encompass the task of driving. Having training data beyond a certain point is overrated, and Tesla's advantage in gathering it is overstated. Other companies are capturing this data as well. Is there any indicati…

It seems as if the people gobbling up the "Tesla has the data! Autopilot will keep getting better!" line have never trained a neural network in their life. Models converge. Loss stops decreasing, regardless of more incoming data. Extreme manual data cleaning effort becomes required to prevent overfitting. Model architecture has to change and hyper parameters have to be tweaked. Then you're back at square one as far a…

> The notion that Tesla's model HAS to keep improving simply because they will be able to pile on more (unlabeled!) data

That the exact opposite of what they are doing.

It seems like you didn't watch the talk at all.

Re: Andrej Karpathy (Tesla): CVPR 2021 Workshop on Autonomous Vehicles [video]

#185

Post by olau »

ra7 wrote: post #112
gibolt wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arizona roads are also mapped to extreme precision, have very wide lanes, and are optimized for cars. Waymo has prioritized low intervention by being overly cautious and avoiding hard maneuvers (like many left turns). That doesn't work when they scale up to any other set of normal roads, especially as density and complexity increases.

They don't avoid left turns. There are plenty of videos from Chandler, AZ of Waymo performing unprotected left turns perfectly fine. They will always map roads to precision, whether it's Arizona or San Francisco. Why is that a problem? You should either look at their CA disengagement reports over the years or wait until they roll out a service in SF (where they've been testing heavily). That will show how safe they a…

From what I gather, they manually mark sections as hard when the cars get stuck there, e.g. due to road work, and then their routing system chooses another route, e.g. one that avoids the left turn.

The video with the Waymo car getting stuck and taking off from the rescue team had an example of this.

I guess it makes perfect sense from a engineering perspective.

Re: Andrej Karpathy (Tesla): CVPR 2021 Workshop on Autonomous Vehicles [video]

#186

Post by tsimionescu »

gibolt wrote: post #103
donio wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The data they have access to is increasing by orders of magnitude. You can only go so far by dumping more data into it. Diminishing returns.

We are chasing the 9s... diminishing returns are still returns. If 10x the data improves from 99.999 to 99.9995, that is still progress. Maybe 100x data gets you to 99.9999.

Are we even at 80% yet, compared to non-drunk/drugged/sleep-deprived regular human drivers? All of the videos I've seen are well below the driving capacity of a human taking their first driving lesson.

Re: Andrej Karpathy (Tesla): CVPR 2021 Workshop on Autonomous Vehicles [video]

#187

Post by tsimionescu »

option wrote: post #10
andyxor wrote: post #8

I like Andrej from his PhD research days and awesome blog posts but this is a series of disasters in the making, that is until FTC steps in after more people die from “self-driving” accidents under interesting and unexpected circumstances. The whole vision vs. LIDAR stuff is a distraction as long as Tesla “AI” doesn’t have common sense. It literally doesn’t know what it’s doing, and the tail of edge cases to "fit" th…

There are two fundamental reasons, in principle, vision alone can do it: 1) Humans do it with vision alone 2) You can actually predict lidar’s output with vision alone. So many systems out there actually use lidar to generate more labeled data to make lidar unnecessary

Human higher-order reasoning is crucial to our ability to use vision to interpret the world. We have a model of the world and we use our vision to adjust it. We don't just draw bounding boxes, we label objects as cars or trees or shadows, and use our understanding of basic physics to predict their possible movement. We further label other data as humans or driving cars or animals, and use our understanding of other agents to predict their plausible movements.

Vision is only used to periodically adjust this model of the world - most of the time, we are living in our heads. This is so true that we normally don't even notice that we entirely lose our vision every time we blink or move our eyes, and we don't notice the extreme blurriness that we have in areas of our 'vision' where we are not currently focusing our eyes.

It's very educational to visit some areas built with non - common sense objects to understand just how limited human vision is if you remove our understanding of the world from it.

Re: Andrej Karpathy (Tesla): CVPR 2021 Workshop on Autonomous Vehicles [video]

#188

Post by cs702 »

aimkey wrote: post #158
cs702 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, Tesla autopilot stats should be compared to other comparably priced vehicles while driving on the highway ONLY. I disagree. Autopilot driving on the highway should be compared to all human drivers driving on the highway. Otherwise you wouldn't be comparing against human performance per mile driven apples-to-apples.

Modern vehicles have much safer crash characteristics than older cars. The average vehicle on the road in the US is 11 years old. Do you know how much crash characteristics of cars have improved in the last decade? The comparison needs to stay in the modern, $65k+ vehicle realm for it to be apples-to-apples. Otherwise, you're comparing a bunch of decade old rust buckets with heat-cycled rubber, no blind spot monitori…

> The BMW F10 535i had ZERO FATALITIES over its entire life in the US. Zero. It had no "self-driving" capabilities. Just lane-departure warning, BLIS, and ACC.

Yes, all evidence I've seen indicates that cars partially driven by computers (adaptive cruise control, lane-departure warning, blind spot information, etc.) are safer than cars entirely driven by human beings. The BMW you mention is safer precisely because it is partially driven by machines. The more we automate driving, as machines get better and better at it, the safer we will all be on the road.

Re: Andrej Karpathy (Tesla): CVPR 2021 Workshop on Autonomous Vehicles [video]

#189

Post by aimkey »

watt wrote: post #179
aimkey wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 11 minute mark is terrifying: 1) The car fails to accelerate to beat the truck as it merges (the safest option given the scenario, even with the yield sign) 2) The car almost collides with the trailer of the truck and it stops with its nose sticking out into the merge lane 3) The car sits there with its nose in the merge lane as other cars go by 4) When the car finally has an opportunity to merge after having don…

Sorry at (1) yield means yield. Maybe it shouldn't have stuck the nose so far out, but yeah you have to wait until proper gap in the traffic. The non-accelerating to highway speed is the real bug though.

There WAS a proper gap in traffic if the car used its accelerator on the ramp. The car would not have impeded the truck at all if it drove the ramp faster. This is an incredibly common issue with autonomous systems: anticipation of other vehicles with an awkward angle of attack, which is common while merging or while other cars are merging. Also, autonomous systems also tend to be way too cautious, which is incredibly dangerous in merging scenarios.

A good driver accelerates on that ramp on beats the truck by 2-3 car lengths and merges at speed. Yield does not mean stop. A cautious driver slows before the merge point, maintains a roll, then mashes the accelerator to merge safely at next opportunity. A terrible driver (Mobileye) stop abruptly at the end of the merge junction, almost hits a truck, leaves its front end sticking out into the oncoming traffic, then dangerously merges sheepishly without accelerating fast enough. You can even see how much this freaks out the human passenger. He thought he was going to get hit!

Re: Andrej Karpathy (Tesla): CVPR 2021 Workshop on Autonomous Vehicles [video]

#190

Post by aimkey »

cs702 wrote: post #188
aimkey wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern vehicles have much safer crash characteristics than older cars. The average vehicle on the road in the US is 11 years old. Do you know how much crash characteristics of cars have improved in the last decade? The comparison needs to stay in the modern, $65k+ vehicle realm for it to be apples-to-apples. Otherwise, you're comparing a bunch of decade old rust buckets with heat-cycled rubber, no blind spot monitori…

> The BMW F10 535i had ZERO FATALITIES over its entire life in the US. Zero. It had no "self-driving" capabilities. Just lane-departure warning, BLIS, and ACC. Yes, all evidence I've seen indicates that cars partially driven by computers (adaptive cruise control, lane-departure warning, blind spot information, etc.) are safer than cars entirely driven by human beings. The BMW you mention is safer precisely because it…

> Yes, all evidence I've seen indicates that cars partially driven by computers

Emphasis on PARTIALLY. Anyone who has read recent takeover scenario studies is rightfully horrified at the notion of a completely “hands off” driving experience, where the driver is expected to remain alert and vigilant but they’re not inputting any steering, throttle, or braking. Unsurprisingly, it takes people about 2 seconds to re-engage as active drivers. 2 seconds is way too long, which is why it may be safer to NOT use a system that does steering input in addition to throttle and brake. You need to keep the drivers actively engaged. And no, “touch the steering wheel every 30 seconds” is not active engagement. And if a car has “self driving” but also active driver monitoring, what’s the point? The driver doesn’t get to relax at all. The stress of driving doesn’t come from the input unless you’re racing. The stress of driving comes from having to stay alert. If I have to stay alert, I’d rather just drive myself instead of trusting an experimental system that drives like an indecisive, half-blind grandmother.

The BMW was safe PRIMARILY because it’s a well-designed, modern car, driven by an older and wealthy (safe) demographic. The assistance systems are probably secondary. They weren’t even standard on all vehicles and they were very primitive in that first generation.

If you actually read the Forbes article above, the back of the napkin math actually DOESN’T indicate that Teslas in autopilot are safer than normal driving. That’s the entire contention. I do not think these full-takeover systems are safer at the present time than active human drivers in comparable vehicles with safety assist systems. Tesla is very clearly fudging the numbers to make it appear as if autopilot is safer, but the claim doesn’t stand up to some really basic analysis.

Post reply on HN