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

Self-driving as a case study for AGI

karpathy.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 199 posts

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#21

Post by kajecounterhack »

jackblemming wrote: post #19

Something tells me Karpathy rarely uses the “FSD” in his Tesla. He barely mentioned Tesla FSD in the blog despite being a key leader in the project. Perhaps he’d like to forget about it all together.. Maybe Elon really screwed the project by forcing the use of video cams and Karpathy is still salty about it.

I think most folks use FSD for what it was intended for, L2 driving. It's a horrible name but it's not crazy to think maybe they'll get their shit together and figure out how to get to L4.

They might just learn they need to add back modalities they neglected previously, or explore some new ones.

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#22

Post by fragmede »

kylebenzle wrote: post #14
SnazzyJeff wrote: post #8

IMO a chatbot is sufficient to demonstrate AGI. I think the chinese room problem is as good as anything. Of course, there isn't much money in teaching a bot that only knows english chinese. EDIT, Wikipedia page for context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Try, "ChatGPT, what do you think about this song"... LLMs do not constitute "AI" let alone the more rigorous AGI. They are a GREAT statistical parlor trick for people that don't understand statistics though.

You're going to have to spell it out for me. I asked ChatGPT 4 about a random song and it gave me a decent description.

https://chat.openai.com/share/71d438d7-d1f5-4f0f-9b63-8b5dd6...

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#23

Post by akira2501 »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #10

I don't things like "full self driving" are meaningful (and probably also AGI), because in reality it isn't a binary thing, rather it's a spectrum of power based on error rate and problem space coverage. Waymo self driving works within a defined subset of the problem space, we can stick a goalpost in the sand in term of the known problem space and error rates and say that represents "full self driving" but the realit…

> Waymo self driving works within a defined subset of the problem space

"works" includes a failure mode of "alert a human and ask them to take over."

> when new areas of problem space are explored.

The problem space is that the "rules of the road" are both legal, technical and social. All of which have internal conflicts as well as conflicts among each other. Anyone who has driven in severe weather has realized this in one way or another.

> For example, imagine a full self driving car trying to get out of a city that's flooding due to heavy rains, while having to compete with people fleeing to higher ground on foot.

Why do I find this easier to imagine in the fictional setting of Elysium than on the real Earth?

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#24

Post by akira2501 »

arlecks wrote: post #20
threeseed wrote: post #15

The question is with what hardware. Humans are able to move our heads to infer depth and resolve issues like occlusion. No amount of AGI can solve those if we say take a Tesla and the cameras are low quality, fixed and limited in number. And the same hardware question applies to a lot of use cases for AGI.

Simple test which I expect they have tried: Can a human drive successfully with only the video from the cameras?

Tom Scott's got us covered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNHhfykh5Qc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZK_fnS62Lk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSmtKMx1CB4

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#26

Post by a-dub »

"AGI: An autonomous system that surpasses human capabilities in the majority of economically valuable work." -- what an obscenely depressing reduction of a fascinating field of inquiry. who the hell snuck in and redefined the science of thinking machines to this sad and reductive get rich quick crap?

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#27

Post by enslavedrobot »

jackblemming wrote: post #19

Something tells me Karpathy rarely uses the “FSD” in his Tesla. He barely mentioned Tesla FSD in the blog despite being a key leader in the project. Perhaps he’d like to forget about it all together.. Maybe Elon really screwed the project by forcing the use of video cams and Karpathy is still salty about it.

Actually if you read the blog he addresses Waymo and Tesla's strategy. He says the barriers to Tesla scaling are software and Waymo needs to scale hardware. He then implies that software will win the scaling race

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#29

Post by etwigg »

Whenever I am trying to figure what is true and/or good for me, there are some people who want to help me and others who want to help themselves (sell me cigarettes, negative sum politics, etc). This is the battle where AGI seems spooky - eventually people are not able to tell which way is up.

We should consider the OODA loop of a person's self-determination separately from the menial tasks a person undertakes to make a living. Automating a task is totally different than breaking a person's ability to self-orient.

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#30

Post by skybrian »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #13
SnazzyJeff wrote: post #8

IMO a chatbot is sufficient to demonstrate AGI. I think the chinese room problem is as good as anything. Of course, there isn't much money in teaching a bot that only knows english chinese. EDIT, Wikipedia page for context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

People like to shit on the Turing test, but if you step back from the subjective judgement angle, and instead imagine that the person performing the Turing test is a scientist trying to collect evidence that the agent that it is communicating with is _NOT_ intelligent/human, it is actually still very relevant. Tools like statistical analysis of output and responses to jailbreak prompts and recursive/self referential…

The actual Turing Test is a party game like Werewolf. If the humans are skilled then they should be able to authenticate by picking a subject that the AI can’t compete on. This would be a very difficult game to build a computer opponent for and nobody really tries.
Post reply on HN