181–190 of 197 posts
Model Y w/HW3 + FSD Beta loves to take those turnoff lanes on 2-lane 55 mph highways, thinking that the road just went to 4 lanes. Unfortunately (for me), those turnoff lanes abruptly stop in a 90 degree right turn. I leave audio comments when it happens when prompted asking why I disabled FSD by yanking the wheel left, but I don't know what else to do.
You could get rid of the car...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure I'm just naive because I don't work in this space, but I keep wondering why they don't do machine learning from a satellite perspective. Yes, the cars need to notice and react to things in front of them. However, a lot of problem areas and odd navigation can be identified from space. I'm surprised they don't do some massive slow exposure shots from a satellite and see how traffic flows across the entire US.…
How would satellite imagery help at night, during cloudy/stormy weather? What sort of latency does the imagery have? Can commercial imagery even resolve things like painted lane markers, construction detour signage, etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can try to minimize it all you want, but indeed it would be transformative. Somehow, when we build a $2 billion Central Subway in San Francisco, through some of the very densest neighborhoods in all of America, with a realized daily ridership of ~3,000, there are no jokes about how unimportant the train is compared to fertilizer.
> You can try to minimize it all you want Far too many people are so selfish that they get hung up on questions like “Could this cause death or grevious bodily harm to me or others on the road?” and do not have the ethical fortitude or wherewithal to focus on “What could the abstract concept of ‘transformative’ mean at an unknown point in the future?” > there are no jokes about how unimportant the train is compared t…
I'll happily admit there are problems with autonomous vehicles today, and that is not what I dispute. What I dispute is that autonomous vehicles are not important. And of course they are. They would free up more human time than any other invention on the horizon.
However, to the non sequitur point about safety, we are not designing a system from scratch. The existing system has two million crashes per year in the US alone. If the new system has one million crashes, that's a massive improvement.
> There is basically no meaningful difference between a self driving Tesla and a train. The only explanation for why you don’t hear people discussing the myriad times that commuter trains veer into traffic or otherwise behave in dangerous and unpredictable ways must be collective ignorance and hypocrisy.
Once again, you've quickly switched the point to something different. The question was if an astronomically expensive train that carries a mere 3,000 riders a day is also worthy of derision, since few people use it, and all it does is replace walking, freeing them up to play Wordle during their commute.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can try to minimize it all you want Far too many people are so selfish that they get hung up on questions like “Could this cause death or grevious bodily harm to me or others on the road?” and do not have the ethical fortitude or wherewithal to focus on “What could the abstract concept of ‘transformative’ mean at an unknown point in the future?” > there are no jokes about how unimportant the train is compared t…
Your original assertion that I took issue with was that "self driving cars are not important other than for a few exec egos." I'll happily admit there are problems with autonomous vehicles today, and that is not what I dispute. What I dispute is that autonomous vehicles are not important. And of course they are. They would free up more human time than any other invention on the horizon. However, to the non sequitur p…
I also liked how you brought up trains and then said I’ve switched the point when I responded to your point about a train.
I concede that your point about San Francisco’s train ridership is unassailable proof that self driving cars are as important as water treatment and germ theory. Since it is the only train in the world and has less than stellar ridership, it is proof positive that the very concept is worse than a car that drives itself into oncoming traffic.
It is a shame that the author of the article did not take a moment to consider ridership numbers of the San Francisco rail project as his car was attempting a u turn on the freeway. A small minded person could find themself thinking about impending death and not specific train projects worthy of derision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, far as I can tell, it's mostly a marketing gimmick. I think it works below 40mph in stop-and-go traffic on Nevada freeways, and doesn't do any navigation and just stays in its lane. They can put out a press release about "L3" all they want, but there's nothing to suggest this is more than an off-the-shelf ADAS/LKAS with some additional driver monitoring. This is not the type of technology or strategy you see any…
Mercedes is taking legal liability for all actions of the car while it is in L3 autonomous mode, which Mercedes calls "Drive Pilot." That feels like more than a marketing gimmick, especially since no other automakers have assumed liability like this (that I know of). I am in stop-and-go traffic on the highway all the time during rush hour, it would still be beneficial to just read a book or work on my laptop while th…
And taking legal liability in very narrow (essentially useless) circumstances is exactly why it’s a marketing thing. It’s to make it seem like they have an advanced system when there is no evidence of them having it or having any realistic path forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mercedes is taking legal liability for all actions of the car while it is in L3 autonomous mode, which Mercedes calls "Drive Pilot." That feels like more than a marketing gimmick, especially since no other automakers have assumed liability like this (that I know of). I am in stop-and-go traffic on the highway all the time during rush hour, it would still be beneficial to just read a book or work on my laptop while th…
Doesn’t appear to be clearly true. https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/mercedes-drive-pilo... And taking legal liability in very narrow (essentially useless) circumstances is exactly why it’s a marketing thing. It’s to make it seem like they have an advanced system when there is no evidence of them having it or having any realistic path forward.
After reading that, it's hard to tell what Mercedes is doing. :/
Hopefully it's not just marketing bullshit, but I guess we'll all only find out over time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might be easier to free up some of those man-years by planning and constructing towns/cities such that people don’t have to drive in them, than developing self driving cars. The two things aren’t even mutually exclusive, you could have a happy, mostly non-car based existence, and then supplement it with a self driving car on the occasion that you really need it (assuming it’s ever achieved).
If you solution begins with "throw away 100 trillion dollars in built-up infrastructure," the idea probably isn't very good.
I just found it somewhat ironic that instead of considering alternatives, people would rather hold out for self driving cars, which may never happen, to reduce time wasted in driving.
You have to be absolutely insane to beta test Tesla FSD, it’s very dangerous and full of bugs, nowhere close to ready. The only reason it’s out on public roads is because Musk is in charge, and he’s happy to take massive risks and kill people to get to market a bit faster. Waymo, on the other hand, is actually very good. Waymo is (IMO) actually a bit better/safer than the average human driver, Tesla FSD is way, WAYYY…
In other words, Tesla may very soon become the reason we can't have nice things.
This will never work. They are still fucking around changing vehicle configurations, sensor configurations, computers, throwing more compute at it, everything after nearly a decade now. It's a hack job death march, reminiscent of half-assed software crap companies I've worked for, surrounded by hype, marketing and rabid fanboyism. I've never seen customers at this scale who are happy being experimented on like lab ra…
The main problem is lack of restraint: "Give me $15,000 non-refundable and someday I will deliver the means to make a profit on the car you bought. It already has the hardware." is building up a big potential liability. But, even if forced to refund that FSD money, it's still been cheap capital to grow Tesla.
This will never work. They are still fucking around changing vehicle configurations, sensor configurations, computers, throwing more compute at it, everything after nearly a decade now. It's a hack job death march, reminiscent of half-assed software crap companies I've worked for, surrounded by hype, marketing and rabid fanboyism. I've never seen customers at this scale who are happy being experimented on like lab ra…
Are you suggesting that AI driving is impossible? What's so special about a human brain "reasoning" while driving that AI can't do it?