Tesla has a self-driving strategy other companies abandoned years ago

Post by erikpukinskis » Mon, Mar 11, 2019, 7:46 AM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #108

ufmace wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last Ars article that I read on Waymo did imply that they had hit a metaphorical wall on their progress, and were keeping things looking good by sticking to lower-speed residential neighborhoods and avoiding situations they had trouble with, like making unprotected left turns onto major streets and passing slow or stopped vehicles on a busy road. Essentially things that require being able to understand that the o…

What's the problem? If a a robot can drive a car more statistically more safely than a human, that seems like a net win. Maybe humans shouldn't be making left turns in traffic or passing trucks either. Those are probably, statistically, the most dangerous things you can do when driving. But we do them all the time, because we have no idea how dangerous they really are.

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Mar 11, 2019, 8:08 AM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #29

It's funny how much people have danced around all this, including this article, but what Musk has done with his statements on self-driving capabilities is called lying .

Post by erikpukinskis » Mon, Mar 11, 2019, 8:15 AM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #165

ufmace wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lying seems to have a strong moral component in English that doesn't seem to be evident here. Most people would say that a proper "lie" involves intentionally trying to convince somebody of something that you know is not true, usually for personal gain. If Musk honestly believes that he can do it, then I guess it isn't technically a lie, even if most people who know the industry say he would have to be delusional to…

Musk benefits financially from deceiving the public. So there is clear wilful intent combined with actual deceit. Sounds pretty clear cut to me.

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Mar 11, 2019, 8:24 AM UTC

justtopost wrote: post #195

abbbacccus wrote: post #145

I am still trying to figure out what started and sustained the enormous self-driving car hype of the last few years. I understand why people who don't know much about technology would buy into it, but I don't understand why so many relatively tech-savvy people have bought into it and why huge amounts of money have been invested into it. It should be obvious - and should have been obvious when the hype started, as wel…

We desprately want it to be true, so we ignore the truth long enough to try earnastly to make it so. It the brave and ignorant charge of the new generation. Which begs the question; Is it enough to mean well and act in earnst, or is ethics reserved for those who have the luxury of self-reflection?

Post by erikpukinskis » Mon, Mar 11, 2019, 8:30 AM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #146

matthewdgreen wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While vision is a hard problem in general, the specific challenge of "ice detection" seems like exactly the kind of problem that computers can be programmed to do better (and more tirelessly) than humans, particularly with specialized detectors and LIDAR. Better sensors, better reaction time, zero distractions. (I don't have any expertise here, just intuition.)

With the right instruments, I don't disagree. But in the context of cameras, I think it will be quite some time before that happens. Watching demos of state-of-the-art computer vision object detection today, I think it may be decades before we have cameras and computers good enough to do the kind of on-the-fly visual analysis that humans do naturally.