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

121–130 of 187 posts

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#121

Post by notdonspaulding »

ajross wrote: post #95
notdonspaulding wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And you (if you're being rational about it) want them in a Tesla Right. Rationally, we all want folks who are worse than the state-of-the-art FSD AI to be using FSD. But thinking that the "very low bar" that has to be cleared is drunk drivers misses the point that most drivers are not drunk . So it's much less impressive to a "safe" human driver to clear the low bar.

> But thinking that the "very low bar" that has to be cleared is drunk drivers I said median, not drunk driver. Existing shipping autopilot is already saving DUI fatalities. This feels like a strawman to me...

> I said median, not drunk driver.

Right, and I originally said:

> 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.

The above-the-median driver is rationally able to see themselves beating Tesla's FSD. But importantly, even below-the-median drivers are likely to think they can beat Tesla's FSD for as long as the mistakes it makes seem naive and trivially-avoided by them. Human trust will require a higher bar than "beats the median human on 5 KPIs, but still on rare occasions decapitates someone because it doesn't know what a semi truck looks like from the side".

FSD advocates seem to want to focus on the "beats the median human" bit. I'm saying it's unlikely they'll gain much public trust until the "can't recognize a sideways semi" stories die down.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#122

Post by ctdonath »

jmportilla wrote: post #81

No one here talking about the freaking humanoid bot?!? Also interesting to see how focused they are still on pure vision input to construct the vector space instead of just using LIDAR, but I wonder how limited they are by existing models already being out there with set hardware.

If you’re going to build a viable AI, and have a billion dollars to spare, and are a high functioning autistic fascinated with making classic sci-fi real, why not create a humorous robot?

Boston Dynamics has shown it’s viable. Cross their work with FSD neutral nets and see what happens.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#123

Post by panick21 »

c-cube wrote: post #108
panick21 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lidar might have dropped in price, but please show me the Lidar that can produce that quality output, is incredibly cheap, easy to manufacture and integrate into the car and available millions of time by next year. And it would be great if it something that almost never broke as things that move a lot tend to. As far as I know static lidar are nowhere near as good. Then if the difference in quality is not actually th…

Just because not needing lidar would be great for Tesla, doesn't make it real. That's wishful thinking. Tesla is not entitled to a well working lidar-free solution just because they need to sell cars right now.

Can you point me to literally any evidence what so ever that the results fake? Is the FSD Beta regularly crashing into things it put at the wrong range?

Tesla has cars with Lidar on the road to check the models as well.

And who says anything about entitled, they have spent a huge amount of effort and therefore money into a solution that they think will be better.

Nobody with Lidar has delivered either so what is better is still an open question. Tesla has picked their strategy and working on it. Others do the same.

My point is simply, not that Tesla has the perfect solution, rather the idea that Tesla is operating based on 'ego' is idiotic. Elon Musk and his companies have repeatably shown that they are very willing, comically so, to throw away work and go back to the beginning if they have encountered a problem. E

lon is well known for not falling into the sunk cost fallacy. Consider the manufacturing of Model 3. Consider Starship being planned to be built from carbon fiber, and switching to stainless steel.

Do you really believe they know lidar would be better and they not changing because of what Musk said 4 years ago? That is literally the opposite of how his company have operated.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#124

Post by wombatpm »

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.

So Elon just needs the neural acne to be working and hook up a brain in a jar to drive teslas

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#125

Post by reubenswartz »

tru3_power wrote: post #34
ModernMech wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This is exactly what LIDAR is for. This is the reason every single team in the 2007 DARPA Urban challenge that finished the race was equipped with a Velodyne laser. We knew it was a critical enabling technology 14 years ago, and it baffles me Tesla is eschewing it. Tesla's lack of this technology is the main reason I feel they will never achieve what they claim to without a huge breakthrough in AI.

What was their reasoning for not using Lidar?

It doesn't work well in rain, snow, fog, dust, etc. It's great in good conditions, but you either have a car that can drive only in good conditions, or you need a car that can drive safely without LIDAR. (Or someone needs to invent a better LIDAR.)

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#126

Post by ModernMech »

shkkmo wrote: post #116
ModernMech wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we're talking about the brain and its processing, planning, and decision-making abilities exhibited during driving, no. We are distinct from animals. We have the technology to build robots that mimic the capabilities of animals, from birds to fish to snakes, and now approaching dogs. Trying to do what humans do while driving with binocular cameras is far beyond our capabilities. Like I said, if you want to drive…

Animals do just fine with more complex navigation challenges than driving a car. While we can 'mimic' various animal capabilities, I don't believe we are anywhere close to AGI with either a dog's level of intelligence, motor control or sensory integration.

> Animals do just fine with more complex navigation challenges than driving a car.

Do you have any scenarios in mind? Driving is not only a navigation challenge, but a social challenge as well. Have you ever tried to navigate a 4 way stop when multiple cars get there at the same time?

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#127

Post by joshuamorton »

karpierz wrote: post #94
joshuamorton wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've specified this problem in a very strange way. But if you're saying that you're trying to train on the specific dataset where a = 1 and b = 1, then your model will fit the data perfectly with 175 billion parameters. It will also fit the data perfectly with, like, 15 parameters. If you're trying to fit to some more complex space where a and b are unknown and you're given 3 numbers in the sequence, then w…

I didn't specify the training set, just the test set. It's possible that your model actually models an arithmetic series. Or that it simply overfits. The point is that it doesn't require trillions of parameters to overfit to a trillion-sized test set.

What you need are more parameters than the complexity of the underlying distribution. If you drop to a linear function you're modelling, you only need a couple of parameters.

"Overfitting" is memorizing the training data instead of generalizing. The example you're providing isn't overfitting, it's just generalizing to the wrong function. Overfitting would be if the validation set was, say, 30 random values that you got right, but didn't get other values along the same lines correct.

> I didn't specify the training set, just the test set

Then unless you constructed the training set with the intent of mistraining the model, I think a training set that got good accuracy on that validation set would generalize.

> The point is that it doesn't require trillions of parameters to overfit to a trillion-sized test set.

You can't "overfit" a validation set, unless you've done something wrong. Overfitting is, by definition, learning the training set too well such that you fail to generalize to a validation set.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#128

Post by shkkmo »

ModernMech wrote: post #126
shkkmo wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Animals do just fine with more complex navigation challenges than driving a car. While we can 'mimic' various animal capabilities, I don't believe we are anywhere close to AGI with either a dog's level of intelligence, motor control or sensory integration.

> Animals do just fine with more complex navigation challenges than driving a car. Do you have any scenarios in mind? Driving is not only a navigation challenge, but a social challenge as well. Have you ever tried to navigate a 4 way stop when multiple cars get there at the same time?

The theory of mind problems involved in driving are huge and are primarily why I don't think you could teach an non-human animal to drive on streets / in traffic.

But depth perception isn't really involved there so those theory of mind issues don't really have any bearing on the need for lidar for self driving cars. Clearly creating world models of sufficient accuracy for driving scale navigation challenges is possible (but potentially pretty hard) with just vision data.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#129

Post by blahblahblogger »

bitsoda wrote: post #110
harikb wrote: post #97

C++ is mentioned many times in the live presentation today. I guess they felt it is important to mention that.

The whole presentation is basically a recruiting event.

Honest Q for anyone here, how is Tesla's software-eng culture?

I've of course heard of people on the ground floor of Tesla (factory workers) not being treated well, I've heard of SpaceX employees having high churn as they get "burnt through", and of Elon being kind of an ass.

But having said that I have a Tesla and am one of those types that like to work on things that bring me value or that I can have some sort of tangible connection to.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#130

Post by joshuamorton »

panick21 wrote: post #113
joshuamorton wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it would be great if it something that almost never broke as things that move a lot tend to. As far as I know static lidar are nowhere near as good. Keep in mind you're saying this about something that attaches to a car, which already has dozens or hundreds of parts that rotate at hundreds or thousands of RPM. > Then if the difference in quality is not actually that great, doing the development effort once will…

Adding more rotating parts is exactly what you are trying to avoid. For example, go look at how Tesla designed the heating and cooling system. The integrated all the different streams of hot and cold in one system duplicate these parts that can break easily. In some cases it can simply not be avoided of course but you better make sure that you really need it if you are gone add it to millions of cars. > cruise and wa…

You didn't really address the meat of the comment: The adage "do things that don't scale" comes to mind. If your options are "have tens of thousands of autonomous vehicles" or "have none", I'm not sure how the second is better.

Waymo and cruise especially, but even a number of others, have demonstrated better autonomy than Tesla. Musk has been claiming full self driving is 6 months away for 5 years now, and he hasn't gotten that much closer.

Post reply on HN