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

For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 190 posts

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#151

Post by gipp »

gwern wrote: post #113

> Businesses are also shifting their focus away from “AI-as-a-service” vendors who promise to carry out tasks straight out of the box, like magic. Instead, they are spending more money on data-preparation software, according to Brendan Burke, a senior analyst at PitchBook. He says that pure-play AI companies like Palantir Technologies Inc. and C3.ai Inc. “have achieved less-than-outstanding outcomes,” while data scie…

> And, for that matter, a market cap of $50b is 'less than outstanding'?

Less than outstanding outcomes

Market cap is their outcome, not their clients' outcomes. The two are decidedly different things, especially in our weird distorted market.

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#152

Post by nomel »

gamblor956 wrote: post #114
lastofthemojito wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Munro is very critical of many aspects of car design; I cannot understand why he's such a fan of FSD. Maybe due to personal profit? https://old.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/kxj0or/twitter_s...

TLDR: Munro admits to owning a bunch of Tesla stock, and there is a drastic change in his opinions of Tesla before he owned Tesla stock vs after.

Or, perhaps there is a drastic change in his stock ownership after his opinions changed.

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#153

Post by kevinventullo »

shkkmo wrote: post #110
moralestapia wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By the time people are allowed to let their cars drive unsupervised, the crash rate of AI versus human will probably be 1:10 or so. This sort of statement keeps being parroted over and over again. As Linus would say, talk is cheap, show me the code ; then we can speak. >So even when those cars ram into fire trucks from time to time [...] This is just insane, honestly, and if this is the premise that guides the devel…

The entire way we approach driver liability in general is insane. The Attorney General of South Dakota was looking at his phone, swerved into the shoulder, killed man and then left the scene. He claimed he thought he hit a deer, even though the victim's head went through the windshield and the victims glasses were later found inside the car. What consequences did the Attorney General face? Was his licence revoked or…

That seems more like plain old political corruption than a problem with the way driver liability is handled. If you or I did that we’d almost certainly be facing prison time.

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#154

Post by nova22033 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #76

I've lost count of the number of people I've talked to who think that neural nets means we've created brains that will just magically learn how to do new tasks. So we just need more training and then automated is just around the corner. Tesla, et al do not have the luxury of ignorance to explain that away however, they know what the technology is and is not currently capable of, but they don't want to admit it.

Tesla, et al do not have the luxury of ignorance to explain that away however, they know what the technology is and is not currently capable of

Would help if Elon Musk didn't tweet out ridiculous claims about FSD..

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#155

Post by RandallBrown »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #46
machinelearning wrote: post #37

Question for people here: Is it justifiable to accept these flaws in the short-term if it results in a car that has a lower-error rate than human drivers in the medium/long-term?

The same argument would justifies human medical experiments, and we know they actually work, and result in faster access to improved drugs and vaccines. Unlike autopilot which could still be crappy after 10 years Yet we have made them illegal after some rather nasty precedents. Seems like hsitory repeats itself

I think the difference is that human medical experiments immediately cause suffering at a higher rate than whatever disease they're trying to fix.

I believe that there have been studies showing that today's "self driving" cars are already statistically safer than regular cars.

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#156

Post by dragontamer »

ChefboyOG wrote: post #93
gibsonf1 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its all artificial but no Intelligence. Statistical pattern matching, no matter how sophisticated, does not understand "why" from conceptually thinking about a space/time model of the world as we humans do.

Even if this is the case, why does it matter? If the explicit goal is to create a human intellect, then sure, there's a really interesting conversation there—one that is happening constantly in the DL/AI research community, in which virtually no one believes that we're close to AGI or that current deep learning is going to achieve it. But that's explicitly not the goal that 99.9% of neural networks are designed with.…

> Even if this is the case, why does it matter?

Because people are using Deep-learning over single-lens cameras to replace depth-perception... and then wondering why the cars that do this run into stationary objects with flashing lights. https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2021/INOA-PE21020-1893.PDF

No one really cares about where deep learning works. People are complaining about all the areas where deep learning is failing, with dramatic and deadly results.

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#157

Post by johnsimer »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #87
moduspol wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I tried FSD on the $200/month plan and dropped it: It makes the car unsafe. To command a lane change you hold down the turn signal stalk. If you fail to hold it down long enough the car suddenly swerves back to the lane it was in. This is (to say the least) disconcerting at 80 mph. That's not quite accurate. Unrelated to autopilot / FSD, you can do a small press on the turn signal and it will signal three times and…

To clarify I'm talking about a lane change initiated by me rather than merely allowing one recommended by the car. The latter only requires a brief flick of the turn signal stalk. But the former required me to actively hold it down for several seconds--much longer than a full turn signal would require. I had to hold it down until the car was completely within the stripes of the adjacent lane or the car would immediat…

Interesting. Either way I only have to tap the stalk down.

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#158

Post by caditinpiscinam »

wolverine876 wrote: post #141
caditinpiscinam wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if our ML systems were meaningfully intelligent, there's still the issue of proper training. You can't teach humans to be a safe drivers by showing them a huge slideshow of dash-cam images. Why do we expect ML to do any better?

> Even if our ML systems were meaningfully intelligent, there's still the issue of proper training. You can't teach humans to be a safe drivers by showing them a huge slideshow of dash-cam images. That's an interesting concept to explore: I would guess that videos could improve people's driving: Imagine new drivers; showing them videos of different situations, actions, and their outcomes, may help. The same videos mi…

I could see videos being effective. When I was younger I watched a lot of those "near miss" / "driving fails" youtube compilations, and I think they gave me a better intuition for how things tend to go wrong on the road. It would be interesting to see a drivers ed program that included material like that.

On the other hand, when I watch a dash-cam video, I'm already have an understanding of how drivers think, how pedestrians behave, how weather conditions affect driving, etc. I could watch a video and tell you "the driver ran the stop-sign because it was hidden behind the tree branch, and hit the other car because the road was wet and they couldn't brake effectively". I don't know if I could learn to recognize those subtleties from watching video alone, which is what it seems like we're trying to achieve with ML.

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#159

Post by caditinpiscinam »

robrenaud wrote: post #146
gibsonf1 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its all artificial but no Intelligence. Statistical pattern matching, no matter how sophisticated, does not understand "why" from conceptually thinking about a space/time model of the world as we humans do.

Does Magnus Carlsen understand why chess moves are good? Does high depth stockfish or AlphaZero understand why moves are good? Why is Carlsen so relatively bad at chess with his understanding of the why?

> Why is Carlsen so relatively bad at chess with his understanding of the why?

I think you have it backwards. Stockfish probably could tell you which specific 30-depth line changed its evaluation, while a human player is much more likely to play based on feel and intuition

Re: For Tesla, Facebook and Others, AI’s Flaws Are Getting Harder to Ignore

#160

Post by play2computers »

amelius wrote: post #11

What will happen if a deep-learning bug is found in Tesla autopilot where it misclassifies a fire truck for a bridge? Will they ground all the Tesla cars remotely? Or disable autopilot remotely? Until they have gathered new training data and updated the software?

I think that should very much depend on the severity and the statistical impact of the bug. As long as the long doesn't raise the deaths-per-mile-driven number above what humans would be doing, I would say it would be ok to just leave it running and just update once it is fixed. The goal is to get cars driving better than humans (which btw they already do by a huge margin, even with the fsd beta). so disabling the autopilot because of a potential bug would be condemning a lot more people to death than leaving it in. Interesting variation of the trolley problem i guess
Post reply on HN