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

Tesla AI Day [video]

livestream.tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 187 posts

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#51

Post by mdorazio »

rnaud wrote: post #36
tru3_power wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was their reasoning for not using Lidar?

Too expensive + Your eyes already do the distance estimation and they are basically cameras so we can do this just as well or better.

> Your eyes already do the distance estimation and they are basically cameras so we can do this just as well or better.

This is not really accurate. Our brains do the distance estimation, and they use all kinds of tricks and contextual clues to do it, not just parallax (~2.5 inch parallax for objects more than ~100ft away isn't all that helpful). And this is the whole problem with vision-only autonomous driving - ML capabilities are nowhere near the capabilities of a human brain.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#52

Post by rootusrootus »

ricardobeat wrote: post #23
Invictus0 wrote: post #15

I like Andrej and I think he's a brilliant guy. At the end of the day though, there is no way for me or anyone to audit the neural networks or their training data. How can anyone trust them? I think this is really a fundamental problem with using neural networks in self-driving cars--I don't want to put my life in the hands of a fragile system that I, and no one alive, can understand. We are being asked to close our…

> We are being asked to close our eyes, take a leap of faith Actually, you're being asked to "Always watch the road in front of you and be prepared to take corrective action at all times. Failure to do so can result in serious injury or death.", until FSD gets released :) Do you trust cab drivers to "be trained on every edge case under the sun"? Self driving only needs to beat humans, who have some serious flaws, not…

> Self driving only needs to beat humans, who have some serious flaws, not achieve perfection.

In particular, though, it needs to beat good human drivers, not average ones.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#53

Post by notdonspaulding »

ajross wrote: post #29
BurningFrog wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong. But you can say the same things about a human driver.

Don't understand why people are downvoting this. This is the fundamental truth about safety automation like this. We don't need a perfect system to get huge gains here. Humans are really bad at driving, frankly. The bar here is very low.

I think you're right that the bar of "average human on the road's driving skills" is very low. However, I think one of the reasons there's such an inherent distrust of Tesla's FSD is that when it fails, it fails in scenarios in which people can easily see themselves succeeding.

Say, on average, human drivers crash into barricades once out of every 500,000 miles driven. And say Tesla's FSD can beat that number by crashing into barricades once out of every 1,000,000 miles driven, it's still possible (probable?) that many people would trust their own control of the vehicle more than Tesla's FSD AI. And they might be justified in doing so!

Why? Because human-caused accidents are not uniformly distributed among the driving population. Insurance companies have employed actuarial analysts for decades to split the driving population up into buckets of greater and lesser risk. Thus, if you're a 17-year-old male, or an 85-year-old woman, or have several DUIs, you're likely to pay higher premiums than most other drivers.

If you're not in one of those high-risk categories though, it's possible your driving performance exceeds the average, and maybe you might only crash into barricades once out of every 2,000,000 miles driven. In that case, you'd be right to trust your skills ahead of the AI.

My example is contrived. It's possible that the FSD AI leapfrogs even the most skilled human drivers. But until it does, there may be rational reasons for many folks to continue distrusting it.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#55

Post by rootusrootus »

ajross wrote: post #29
BurningFrog wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong. But you can say the same things about a human driver.

Don't understand why people are downvoting this. This is the fundamental truth about safety automation like this. We don't need a perfect system to get huge gains here. Humans are really bad at driving, frankly. The bar here is very low.

That's ridiculous. Humans are quite good at driving, along with many other complex tasks. The fact that we see about 1 death for every 100,000,000 miles is pretty fantastic, especially when you consider how heavily that is tilted towards impaired drivers.

Exclude the worst 1% of drivers and the average goes up considerably.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#56

Post by FeepingCreature »

karpierz wrote: post #44
bpodgursky wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless your model actually has trillions of parameters (and it doesn't, even gpt-3 only has 175 billion) it is not even possible to overfit on 1.4 trillion training inputs. You can't actually pigeonhole it.

Suppose that you train a neural network to predict the next number in an arithmetic sequence (a, a+b, a+2b, a+3b, a+4b, ...). As input it gets two numbers, the last number and the current number and has to predict the next one. Suppose you had 1.4 trillion examples in the following test set (using a model with 175 billion parameters): (1,2)->3 (2,3)->4 (3,4)->5 ... Do you think it is possible to overfit and score per…

That isn't overfit, that's fit. Nothing can protect you if your training set just doesn't have any indication of the thing you want it to learn.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#57

Post by kitsunesoba »

doctoboggan wrote: post #37
tru3_power wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was their reasoning for not using Lidar?

I think originally it was because of the cost of the equipment. Elon and team saw how expensive lidar was and thought they needed to be able to solve the problem without it. However lidar has dropped drastically in price, so at this point I think they aren't using it just for ego reasons (i.e., we claimed it was possible to get self driving without lidar in the past, so we have to continue down that path)

Wasn't another factor the physical size of the lidar units? Part of Tesla's schtick is making normal or even attractive looking cars (as opposed to the "alien bug" aesthetic EVs were synonymous with at the time) and that's a lot harder to do with a big lidar unit on top.
Post reply on HN