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

California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

teslarati.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#291

Post by qetlrkn »

treis wrote: post #259
britneybitch wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're talking about humans, I think you're underestimating the importance of the less obvious senses: - sound - touch - equilibrioception (balance) - proprioception - and surely there are more Think of the visceral difference between driving a car in real life, vs driving a car on a screen in a video game.

The problem with driving in video games is using a keyboard/mouse or controller. Driving with a steering wheel and pedals is pretty easy. Even more so if you have the monitors to give you a realistic field of view.

driving a car in a video game with a steering wheel is easy because it's an experience designed from the ground up with that interface in mind. driving games happily do shit like change the fov to make the user think they're going faster, etc.

being easy to drive with a steering wheel in a driving game, and being easy to drive a real car with a steering wheel (with internet level latency and packet loss at play, mind you) are very different things

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#292

Post by gcanyon »

simonh wrote: post #262
725686 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was talking about humans.

In which case he’s even more wrong. Humans use a whole mess of different senses while driving, including hearing, the inertial sensitivity in the inner ear, touch to feel vibrations and from the car and the wheels on the road. Plus we have a huge amount of contextual information about the meaning of what we are seeing from life experience outside driving, which no Tesla that currently exists can ever have. It’s a cle…

The claim isn't that humans can drive as well using the Tesla cameras as they can in person, just that they can. That seems obviously true.

The (not explicitly made) sub-claim is that an AI can make up for the lack of audio, etc. by being smarter than a human and faster than a human, better able to multi-task than a human, and completely non-distractible. That's debatable, but not impossible.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#293

Post by Kiro »

scaramanga wrote: post #75
Kiro wrote: post #61

How times have changed since Tesla was untouchable here. What happened and why does everyone talk like they've always hated Tesla (and Elon)? Surely it's mostly the same crowd as when Tesla was loved and Elon a superstar.

I think a lot of people got caught up in a sort of mass mania induced by media portrayals of a billionaire genius with a mission to change the world for the better. Recent events have just given people permission to climb down from the collective psychosis.

I think it's dangerous to presume that the current narrative is clean from delusion and that only the previous discourse was a psychosis.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#294

Post by whakim »

jupp0r wrote: post #124
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Do you find Uber and Lyft to be affordable or a financially sensible means of regular transportation?

Not paying a human to do the driving would make Uber/Lyft much cheaper, it's the dominant cost component of a ride if you do the math.

But where are the cars themselves coming from in this scenario? Are these still other people's cars which Lyft/Uber are essentially paying you to put on their platform? I don't think you can afford to pay people that much less than drivers are paid per hour. Is Uber/Lyft taking care of gas/maintenance or is the owner on the hook for that in the middle of whatever else they might be doing? Or does Uber/Lyft own the cars, in which case you've just replaced one big cost (paying drivers) with another big cost (owning a fleet of vehicles)?

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#295

Post by jcampbell1 »

giobox wrote: post #257
rsynnott wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our ‘cameras’ are also so much better than any camera that could be put in a car (by most though not all metrics) that there is no real comparison.

By which metrics are human eyes outperforming “any camera that can be put in a car today”? This seems unlikely in almost any domain, given the much wider dynamic range camera sensors can capture - cameras can see into spectrum we simply can’t (infrared, UV…) and operate at much lower levels of light than a human eyeball while retaining full color vision using really cheap tech. They also don’t get tired or worse with…

The biggest difference between human vision and cameras is the fovea. Half of our optic nerves are concentrated in the visual area the size of our thumbnail with an outstretched arm. To replicate human vision you have to have a high resolution camera, downsample the image and then grant the AI access to high resolution imagery when requested.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#296

Post by Tiktaalik »

epgui wrote: post #274
endisneigh wrote: post #16

Mainstream full self driving would just create massive traffic and gridlock - pointless in the end. The induced demand would outweigh the benefits. States are better off acknowledging that sprawling car dependent cities are not sustainable. High frequency busses in the interim with rail transit is the real solution. Current self driving technology plus some key infrastructure changes with dedicated bus lanes and prio…

> Mainstream full self driving would just create massive traffic and gridlock I believe the opposite is the more likely outcome: I think we can expect much lighter traffic the more autonomous vehicles there are. Most traffic is caused by humans doing really irrational things, like following each other too closely, making unnecessary lane changes, and driving at inconsistent speeds. It's very rare that traffic congest…

The sorts of Driving behaviors you mention are not a significant cause of traffic congestion. Traffic congestion is caused by there being too many cars on the road with limited space for cars.

Anything that will increase the amount of cars will quickly dominate inefficient driving behaviors, and self driving cars will massively increase the amount of cars on the road, as it would drive down the cost of driving and enable many many people who currently can’t drive to get onto the road (eg. Disabled, elderly, unlicensed, children).

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#298

Post by aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA »

qetlrkn wrote: post #291
treis wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with driving in video games is using a keyboard/mouse or controller. Driving with a steering wheel and pedals is pretty easy. Even more so if you have the monitors to give you a realistic field of view.

driving a car in a video game with a steering wheel is easy because it's an experience designed from the ground up with that interface in mind. driving games happily do shit like change the fov to make the user think they're going faster, etc. being easy to drive with a steering wheel in a driving game, and being easy to drive a real car with a steering wheel (with internet level latency and packet loss at play, mind…

And they often employ tricks to improve the handling, like burying the center of mass below the vehicle.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#299

Post by treis »

qetlrkn wrote: post #291
treis wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with driving in video games is using a keyboard/mouse or controller. Driving with a steering wheel and pedals is pretty easy. Even more so if you have the monitors to give you a realistic field of view.

driving a car in a video game with a steering wheel is easy because it's an experience designed from the ground up with that interface in mind. driving games happily do shit like change the fov to make the user think they're going faster, etc. being easy to drive with a steering wheel in a driving game, and being easy to drive a real car with a steering wheel (with internet level latency and packet loss at play, mind…

>being easy to drive with a steering wheel in a driving game, and being easy to drive a real car with a steering wheel (with internet level latency and packet loss at play, mind you) are very different things

Sure, but I don't think it's that different than driving a real car looking out a monitor sized windshield. You might lose some braking and cornering without your inertial perceptions. But you'd still be able to driver around easily.

Either way I think a speedometer is an assumed input for a self driving car and from that you can calculate almost everything needed related to proprioception.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#300

Post by danaris »

simonh wrote: post #262
725686 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was talking about humans.

In which case he’s even more wrong. Humans use a whole mess of different senses while driving, including hearing, the inertial sensitivity in the inner ear, touch to feel vibrations and from the car and the wheels on the road. Plus we have a huge amount of contextual information about the meaning of what we are seeing from life experience outside driving, which no Tesla that currently exists can ever have. It’s a cle…

...And furthermore, the neural nets and cameras Tesla uses are vastly inferior to our brains. Just because you can argue that a neural network of some kind uses the same basic structures as our brains doesn't mean that it can come within a light-year of what our brains can actually do.
Post reply on HN