341–350 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Context matters. Reread the comment to which that was a reply. It focused specifically and exclusively on the name so I called out that focus.
You didn't focus your comment well enough on that aspect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forget rain and snow, they can't even handle non-California roads yet. I had the misfortune of taking a rental on narrow mountain roads and it actively attempted to kill us twice. While moving over to pass an oncoming car, the lane keeping feature decided we were too close to the shoulder and started steering us back into the oncoming car. After pulling over, regaining my composure for a few minutes, and figuring out…
> somehow it activated again on a different day and it happened again. I dont have a tesla but my car has things like "lane assist" and most of these safety features can be turned off, but the default state is "ON" and this is reset once the car is turned off/on again. Oddly enough, what it calls "advanced cruse control" defaults to OFF on my car and must be turned on any time you want to use it?
Similarly MPG rating also requires that, which is why stuff like auto stop/start and the safety features don't remember settings after restart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about non California weather? I imagine radar might handle fog, but driving rain as in Carolina or serious snow as in Canada?
The rain can be no joke here. I've had to stop driving and pull over for the first time in my life after moving to NC. The rain was too heavy to see more than 10 feet or so.
If they call it a failure, yet still sell it, then it becomes fraud, doesn't it?
But doing it after people bought in, well...
It might be a plausible argument for stuff sold 6 years ago when the future was uncertain. But in 2022 I'm not seeing how it's plausible as an excuse. Considering it's still being sold and marketed as 'Full self driving'. Clearly even level 4 autonomy is far beyond what any near future technology is capable of. If at the very least due to the fact that a very commonly encountered condition, construction work, effecti…
Pretend you don’t know anything about the different levels. You’re just a random person looking to buy a car. What does “full self driving” sound like to you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was what he was describing a disease? Because I don't believe in diagnosing diseases based on a few sentences.
You literally described it as an affliction. If you prefer the criticism to be, "don't pathologize someone based on a few sentences," fine, don't pathologize someone based on a few sentences. If your stated belief is real, then I'd encourage you to reflect on why you were willing to violate this principle, and why, after being challenged on it, you deflected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theranos isn't a failure, they just haven't achieved their goal yet. You can read this any way you want. I do think that Theranos (or another company) may eventually achieve part of the vision of Theranos. Same for FSD.
I love these analogies. Like those people who didn’t buy Amazon stock in 2014 because they remembered WebVan. It’s internet. It’s shopping. They speak of the future. Hence it is exactly the same. If GPT reasoned like this, you’d snicker about how it “just pretends to be intelligent”, would you not? :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like, selling the Everest experience but failing to equip yourself with oxygen, climbing axes, etc., and not arranging for transport anywhere near the mountain. Instead, travelling to a idyllic mountain retreat 500 miles away. And then watching a video on a big screen of someone climbing. Definitely a contrast between the sales pitch and reality.
That sounds uncharitable. The Tesla ML model is among the best on the market right now, with millions of miles of training video, lots of FLOPs spent on training and a top-tier engineering team, no? Let’s say the system responds correctly to X% of stimuli, what’s the delta here? We do know that effort and difficulty increases exponentially as we approach 100%, but what’s fraud here? That someone thought they’d hit 99…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is what no one at all wants. Tesla seems to be taking the big ball of ML approach, and that relies on a model that can practically think, and that in turn means you're essentially waiting on AGI. Which is ridiculous. Instead you break down the problem that is driving. Throw pieces of ML at specific problems, like traffic light classifiers, but have a much more structured approach to the high level decisions that…
"No one at all" wants a car where you can just get in, input the address, then ignore the wheel and what's going on outside until you get there? I think many, many people would beg to differ.
> Basically, it turns out you need to have something that can think, and ML is nowhere near that.
This is what I was replying to. The comment I replied to didn't say a word about hoping into your car and inputting an address, and my comment repeatedly mentioned ML, so it's really hard to imagine you actually read either and came away with that erroneous of a conclusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't focus your comment well enough on that aspect.
Sorry, I guess I shouldn’t have assumed that people would read my reply in the context of the comment I replied to.