231–240 of 449 posts
When I used to ride, getting rear ended at a stop was one of my biggest fears other than people blowing stop signs. I always left more space in front of me that would give me room to maneuver as I watched for the car behind me to make the stop.
The point I soured on Musk was when he ditched radar/lidar and tried to go with camera's alone. This made me realize he is not the genius he is made out to be but instead he is a fraud/charlatan and over the years his statements on different topics have only hardened that belief. Why the fuck would you want ai cars to be the same as humans you should want them to be many times better and radarr/lidar sonarr type tech…
But why make the jump to "fraud/charlatan"? Every system needs to be finite. We can invest in every bell and whistle. Furthermore, he's upfront about the decision. Fraud requires deception.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Multiple independent sensor streams is like having multiple pilots fly a plane instead of just one pilot. The chance of a fatal error (false negative identification of an object near the car) decreases from p to p^n. The size of that decrease is not intuitive: if p=0.0001 it now becomes a much smaller number with the introduction of a second pilot or second independent sensor stream (0.0001^2). Now the errors are not…
>Multiple independent sensor streams is like having multiple pilots fly a plane. Don't think that's the right analogy. Realistically you'd aim to combine them meaningfully. A bit like two eyes gives you depth perception. You assume 1+1 is less than two, when really you'd aim for >2
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make." — Lord Farquaad, Shrek , https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126029/characters/nm0001475?it...
The irony is almost palpable, invoking this quote against a system that is driving 600 million miles a quarter without the 8 deaths a human would cause over the same distance.
Tesla releases all self driving statistics including time since disengagement of self-driving before accident, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Multiple independent sensor streams is like having multiple pilots fly a plane instead of just one pilot. The chance of a fatal error (false negative identification of an object near the car) decreases from p to p^n. The size of that decrease is not intuitive: if p=0.0001 it now becomes a much smaller number with the introduction of a second pilot or second independent sensor stream (0.0001^2). Now the errors are not…
I misread your first sentence, in that having multiple pilots is not necessarily a good thing, like multiple cooks. You have a main and a backup pilot, but either one must be 100% capable of doing it on their own. The backup is silently double checking, but their assignments are more about ensuring that the copilot doesn't just check out because they're human. If the copilot ever has to say "don't do that it's going…
This is not how flying works in a multi-crew environment. It’s a common misconception about the dynamic.
Both pilots have active roles. Pilots also generally take turns who is manipulating the flight controls (“flying the airplane”) each flight.
It's pretty impressive that we have self-driving cars that takes us this far with Just cameras. But it probably won't get any better than this without a revamp. That said, what if we make these self driving tools fully available to drivers. Drivers are pretty good at driving already with with relatively short training. Give them the superpowers of teslas like 360 view, predictive object path, and object detection and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tesla could very well have the best FSD software on the market Tesla could very well have the best FSD marketing on the software. And that's dangerous. Data point: the "First To Gain U.S. Approval For Level 3 Automated Driving System" is ... Mercedes-Benz https://www.forbes.com/sites/kyleedward/2023/09/28/mercedes-... The second will be, IDK, maybe BMW? https://www.bmwblog.com/2024/06/25/bmw-approval-for-combinin..…
> First To Gain U.S. Approval For Level 3 Automated Driving System It’s actually more a testament to Mercedes Benz’s ability to navigate regulatory slog. VW would’ve passed emissions if the technicians didn’t take it out of the lab to test for on-road conditions.
I for one find this line of argument - that videos on YouTube are a stronger signal than regulatory approval - to be absolutely wrongheaded, delusional and laughable. YouTube proves nothing, and as a platform, was never intended to. Unlike regulatory approval.
The other comment pointing this out has been (ridiculously) flagged, so I'll repeat the point that was made: The analysis is useless if it doesn't account for the base rate fallacy ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy ) The first thing I thought before even reading the analysis was "Does the author account for it?" And indeed he makes no mention that he did. So after reading the whole article I have no…
It is a bad article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not addressing the base rate. To take a hypothetical extreme: If all cars but one on the road were Teslas, it would not be meaningful to point out that there have been far more fatalities with Teslas. Even more illustrative, if 10 people on motorcycles had died from Teslas, and 1 person had died from that sole non-Tesla, then that non-Tesla would be deemed much, much more dangerous than Tesla.
It does address the base rate, though not in a fully satisfactory way. You're correct to point out the number of Teslas on the road vs. other vehicles, as is this person who mentions driving hours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43601681 The replies to my comment seem to me to be addressing the question of what the appropriate reference class is, not the base rate fallacy.
The base rate fallacy is fundamentally about the relative rates in the population, and I don't see that data in the article.