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

141–150 of 187 posts

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#141

Post by Cogito »

sangnoir wrote: post #138
panick21 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bett…

> Is the FSD Beta regularly crashing into things it put at the wrong range? As a matter of fact, yes: self-driving Teslas have been crashing into emergency vehicles so often, they are being investigated[1] 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28197355

Just in case you missed it, the person you're replying to asked a focused question about the new FSD Beta software.

The investigation you reference stems from previous versions of the softawre.

The broader context can't be ignored when discussing the new software, but it's reasonable to point to progress as demonstration that the chosen technology path is a viable one.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#142

Post by tablespoon »

Aliabid94 wrote: post #38
tru3_power wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was their reasoning for not using Lidar?

Too expensive. They also removed radar because of the global chip shortage so they're all in on vision.

> Too expensive. They also removed radar because of the global chip shortage so they're all in on vision.

That doesn't make much sense to me. Tesla also needs chips for computer vision.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#143

Post by AlotOfReading »

ajross wrote: post #135
AlotOfReading wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you measure the performance of an ML engine in untested conditions? Tesla's whole goal is to achieve L5 capabilities. That means anywhere in any conditions, which is clearly impossible to comprehensively validate with a finite test set. It's plausible that we could get a long period of acceptable safety before a black swan event suddenly causes deaths because it can't handle smoke, heavy rain/fog, or blizzard…

That's just ludditism. That logic works for any new technology. How do you know vaccines are safe under all conditions? How do you know planes won't crash under some "black swan" event? How do you know GM food won't poison you? How do you know your fuel tank won't explode? How do you know your ocean liner won't hit an iceberg and sink? There's literally no technology in the world that meets your standards. You don't…

I'm not sure what in my post gave you the impression that I'm demanding perfection, but it's incorrect. My interpretation of the GP's point is that we know these kinds of perception models have very real failure cases in the presence of noise and adversarial images in the environment, among other possible operating conditions. They're asking what safeguards exist to mitigate the risk of a system failure, which is something other SDC companies have put enormous amounts of work into.

It's a perfectly fair question and the general expectation of things we have as a society is that things generally shouldn't fail catastrophically at random. In a plane, that's achieved to socially acceptable levels by an incredible amount of systems engineering, redundancy, aerodynamics, and ultimately well trained pilots & ATC. With food it's achieved by government oversight, standards, and the general principle that most things won't harm you. With ships, we simply have them avoid icebergs.

What isn't a good answer is just handwaving about measuring model performance. That's the smallest of the many prerequisites to safety here.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#144

Post by Cogito »

ipsum2 wrote: post #100

I don't know if anyone else caught this, but their "optimal trajectory" planned path is illegally changing lanes in an intersection, at -1:26:00: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0z4FweCy4M . Pretty funny.

I remember reading something about the legality of changing lanes in an intersection in different jurisdictions, and a quick google gives me this [0].

The consensus seems to be that it's legal in many places, however a dangerous lane change is always illegal and changing lanes in an intersection is almost always dangerous.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/25kbg3/i...

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#145

Post by comfysocks »

tablespoon wrote: post #140
abc_lisper wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk.. animals seem to do fine without a lidar

> Idk.. animals seem to do fine without a lidar Animals also have (non)-artificial general intelligence. That doesn't mean Tesla's making a reasonable design choice if they build something in a way that relies on having that kind of capability.

The way I imagine it, Elon made Andrej put in that slide about "We are effectively building a 'synthetic animal' from the ground up." It vaguely hints at a small-scale AGI. A little bit of Andrej's soul dies when he has to says those ridiculous words, but he views this as the price he has to pay to have his dream job. Anyhow, that's how it would have played out if i had Andrej's job.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#146

Post by fastball »

dragontamer wrote: post #133
bane wrote: post #88

Bottom line, robots coming soon. He's slowly building out the roadmap for the labor pool, transportation, communications system and so on for the colonization of Mars.

They were supposed to do coast to coast self driving years ago according to these hype videos https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/tesla-coast-to-coast-auto... Hard to take them seriously given how much hype they generate each year.

Accurate hardware/software development timelines are an unsolved problem.

To me, the question is: is the technology getting better over time? And from what I've seen I would answer that question with a resounding yes.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#147

Post by itsoktocry »

panick21 wrote: post #115
itsoktocry wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> could allow them to rapidly accelerate toward true FSD Every year a little BS is added, and the faithful believe this. There is zero evidence they collect the data they claim to.

You think they are fake collecting data? I suppose they wrote code to create fake uploads from peoples cars. How deep is this conspiracy going. How does the FSD Beta work? Do they buy data from somewhere else? Or are all the people who have the FSD Beta paid by Tesla to create fake content. True conspiracy theory you have unraveled here.

>You think they are fake collecting data? I suppose they wrote code to create fake uploads from peoples cars. How deep is this conspiracy going.

The conspiracy "keeps going" by the simple math of what they claim to collect vs what actually comes off of the cars and is stored.

Do you have any idea the bandwidth and storage associated with endless hours of video storage? Where is it all accounted for? Do you think people are uploading hours and hours of video, from multiple cameras, through cell towers and it's completely unmeasurable?

It's astonishing to me that people actually believe that's happening. They've been faking and exaggerating things for years. But yeah, sure, this is a real stretch.

>How does the FSD Beta work? Do they buy data from somewhere else?

They have some driving data and simulate the rest (something they used to say was a no-no). Did you even watch the presentation? The point is, they have no real "data" advantage over competitors. They literally had LiDAR rigs driving around cities collecting data...why, when they have a million cars submitting billions of miles worth of video?

Let me guess, you're one of these layman who thinks the "neural net" is being trained every time the car disengages?

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#148

Post by itsoktocry »

pyinstallwoes wrote: post #90
itsoktocry wrote: post #84

"Human-level hands" Do sensible people really take this seriously?

How can sensible people not? Really the problem would be that anyone that has not increased their threshold of the absurd are blind to the future that is here.

Can you point me to the robotaxis they announced were imminent at a similar event two years ago?

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#149

Post by c-cube »

panick21 wrote: post #123
c-cube wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bett…

Like you say, FSD beta is new, so, no. The autopilot software has killed people though.

The sunk cost fallacy is stronger when it's not just R&D but thousands of people who paid 10k$ on the promise that their car had all the hardware required... Cars that shipped without a lidar.

And I believe waymo uses lidar and has, as far as I know, killed nobody. They also take a more cautious approach where bystanders are not turned into beta testers, of course :-)

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#150

Post by Invictus0 »

GrantZvolsky wrote: post #72
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…

How can anyone trust any other complex system? Even something as seemingly trivial as a bridge. Picture driving on an unfamiliar road when suddenly there's a bridge ahead. How can anyone in that situation trust that bridge? Without knowing how it was built, whether it is in a state of disrepair, or whether the two sides of the bridge connect without a precipice inbetween[1]. The answer is that we don't need to comple…

We trust the government regulators to set standards for bridges, we trust civil engineers to build them properly, we know that bridge building has a long history and established body of knowledge, and we know that bridges rarely fall down. Yes, obviously we do not have all the information to verify the integrity of the bridge in that moment, but we can at least trust that an appropriately trained person somewhere on Earth can fully understand the system and can analyze it to verify its integrity. That's not the case with ML--no one understands it, no one can verify it.
Post reply on HN