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

101–110 of 187 posts

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#101

Post by ModernMech »

abc_lisper wrote: post #74
ModernMech wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This is exactly what LIDAR is for. This is the reason every single team in the 2007 DARPA Urban challenge that finished the race was equipped with a Velodyne laser. We knew it was a critical enabling technology 14 years ago, and it baffles me Tesla is eschewing it. Tesla's lack of this technology is the main reason I feel they will never achieve what they claim to without a huge breakthrough in AI.

Idk.. animals seem to do fine without a lidar

Animals don't drive cars...

edit: Since this got such a negative reaction I'll amend it with more of an argument.

If an animal can do X with eyes, this in no way implies we can do X with binocular cameras, as it completely discounts

1) our eyes are preprocessors for our brain in a way that cameras are not. That both sensors capture light doesn't mean they are equivalent.

2) robot brains are not there, in any way, shape, or form.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#102

Post by snypher »

abc_lisper wrote: post #74
ModernMech wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This is exactly what LIDAR is for. This is the reason every single team in the 2007 DARPA Urban challenge that finished the race was equipped with a Velodyne laser. We knew it was a critical enabling technology 14 years ago, and it baffles me Tesla is eschewing it. Tesla's lack of this technology is the main reason I feel they will never achieve what they claim to without a huge breakthrough in AI.

Idk.. animals seem to do fine without a lidar

I'm sure a rhino would appreciate one. They have bad depth vision due to their horn being in the way.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#103

Post by cycrutchfield »

ModernMech wrote: post #101
abc_lisper wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk.. animals seem to do fine without a lidar

Animals don't drive cars... edit: Since this got such a negative reaction I'll amend it with more of an argument. If an animal can do X with eyes, this in no way implies we can do X with binocular cameras, as it completely discounts 1) our eyes are preprocessors for our brain in a way that cameras are not. That both sensors capture light doesn't mean they are equivalent. 2) robot brains are not there, in any way, sha…

Are humans animals?

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#104

Post by egillie »

gccs wrote: post #17
alain94040 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would QA solve that problem? As in, "we replayed 1.4 trillion accident scenarios and our AI behaved correctly on all of them". Safety in numbers.

"We trained a model, overfit on 1.4 trillion accident scenarios, and if behaved correctly on all of them."

k-fold cross validation

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#105

Post by cptskippy »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #46
TheJoeMan wrote: post #31

I might be completely wrong here, but hasn’t their collision incidents often been with weird things in the road such as sideways 18 wheelers and yellow lines heading into barricades? They’ve put lots of effort into tracking some pedestrian waaaaay over on the side passing behind trees, and that is really really impressive. But it seems to me the only reason it doesn’t hit a car in front on the road is because the neu…

> I would like to see some system that also doesn’t collide into any sort of random object directly in front. The flip side of this is false positives: you don’t want a car slamming on the brakes because of a plastic shopping bag or other soft piece of trash lying in the road. This is a hard problem, regardless of technology employed. On the other hand, you need the car to distinguish a mattress lying in the road fro…

> The flip side of this is false positives: you don’t want a car slamming on the brakes because of a plastic shopping bag or other soft piece of trash lying in the road. This is a hard problem, regardless of technology employed.

Driving is hard.

I totalled* a car trying to avoid what ended up being a black trash bag full of foam rubber on an on ramp at night.

* By insurance standards, it was perfectly drivable.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#106

Post by ModernMech »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #103
ModernMech wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Animals don't drive cars... edit: Since this got such a negative reaction I'll amend it with more of an argument. If an animal can do X with eyes, this in no way implies we can do X with binocular cameras, as it completely discounts 1) our eyes are preprocessors for our brain in a way that cameras are not. That both sensors capture light doesn't mean they are equivalent. 2) robot brains are not there, in any way, sha…

Are humans animals?

When we're talking about the brain and its processing, planning, and decision-making abilities exhibited during driving, no. We are distinct from animals. We have the technology to build robots that mimic the capabilities of animals, from birds to fish to snakes, and now approaching dogs. Trying to do what humans do while driving with binocular cameras is far beyond our capabilities. Like I said, if you want to drive with just binocular cameras like a human, you'll need a human-level AI brain to go with it, and that's not coming any time soon.

edit: I don't understand how this is a controversial statement...

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#107

Post by truffdog »

GuB-42 wrote: post #42
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…

It just has to be better than humans. That's why I think Tesla's approach is wrong. It tries to replicate a human driver. The argument against lidar is "we don't need a lidar to drive, our eyes and brain are enough". Yes, enough to kill thousands of people. You can easily find pictures of involuntarily camouflaged obstacles that take way too long for us to notice, and as expected, vision based system fail just like u…

It doesn't need to be better than humans- slightly worse, but doesn't get drunk or tired still saves thousands of lives. Slightly worse but never drives crazy or gets distracted by someone in the passenger seat. Worse but is never surreptitiously texting.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#108

Post by c-cube »

panick21 wrote: post #63
doctoboggan wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think originally it was because of the cost of the equipment. Elon and team saw how expensive lidar was and thought they needed to be able to solve the problem without it. However lidar has dropped drastically in price, so at this point I think they aren't using it just for ego reasons (i.e., we claimed it was possible to get self driving without lidar in the past, so we have to continue down that path)

Lidar might have dropped in price, but please show me the Lidar that can produce that quality output, is incredibly cheap, easy to manufacture and integrate into the car and available millions of time by next year. And it would be great if it something that almost never broke as things that move a lot tend to. As far as I know static lidar are nowhere near as good. Then if the difference in quality is not actually th…

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.

Re: Tesla AI Day [video]

#109

Post by gonzo41 »

rnaud wrote: post #36
tru3_power wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was their reasoning for not using Lidar?

Too expensive + Your eyes already do the distance estimation and they are basically cameras so we can do this just as well or better.

Yeah but some people suck at throwing darts. So some part of their mechanical system is bad at making judgements. Sure they can learn. But I want a 2 ton cyber truck hurtling down the freeway to KNOW how far things are away.

Telsa should pivot and innovate to make lidar cheaper.

Post reply on HN