241–249 of 249 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a big deal for Tesla, though, because they had to fit into a tiny power budget. HW2.0 wasn't enough for what they wanted to do, and to retrofit existing cars they had to consume a similar amount of power. Power efficiency does make a range difference and is worth seeking, but Tesla is exaggerating this, IMO, to conceal one of the ways that the churn-heavy cycle for FSD has imposed organizational costs (an enti…
I would expect them to seek compute/watt basically until they stopped making progress. An actual working system might slow them down, but even then, better hardware is one of the ways to make it better.
There's commodity computing of comparable throughput that other automakers can incorporate without too much cost, but it doesn't fit into the existing TM3 vehicles because it has a larger footprint in power, space, and cooling than HW2.
Here, Tesla spends a bunch of money to develop HW3 and overcome this problem, but the advantage in a new car design between HW3's efficiency and commodity hardware is limited.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Choice is good, alternative implementations are good. But I think competition is bad. It is wasteful and antisocial.
Competition is good and directly leads to the progress we’ve seen in the western world.
Replacing competition with cooperation may have accelerated the positive aspects of progress (e.g. science), and maybe slowed or prevented many of the negative ones.
Here's a treatise on the topic, if you're interested in this counterpoint: https://www.alfiekohn.org/contest/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you really follow how drivers reacted to the changes before/after Karpathy came there? People were extremely dissatisfied with the first versions of Autopilot 2 (as it was worse than Autopilot 1 when it appeared), but it improved a lot, and now it's definitely better.
I recall everyone saying Tesla "FSD" was awesome and industry leading, I see them saying that today, and I expect they'll be telling their grandchildren the same while being driven around in a Waymo. In all seriousness, I like Karpathy and his work. Seems like a good guy. Not sure why you'd want to work to enrich a guy like Elon Musk though.
If you look at the alternative (Dieselgate), which is killing millions of people every year thanks to air pollution (sadly I'm highly affected by it, trying to not go near any polluted area is what my life is about at an age of 37), I'm happy for Elon Musk and I hope Tesla's mission will succeed as soon as it is possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Less than Uber, but more than Waymo, who is only offering ~$20k-ish stock packages like a late start-up who expects to 10x. Depends on how you value Tesla stock, though. See levels.fyi
I know people at both Tesla and Waymo, and Tesla does not pay as well as Waymo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having replicated the fruit fly's brain, what are you going to do? Replicate the rest of the fruit fly so that you can install the brain in it? And then replicate the world so that your software-simulated fruit fly has a natural context in which to operate? Or just stimulate the brain with random inputs not associated with any real-world stimulus?
I’m pretty sure simulating fly’s neural inputs would be a far easier task than simulating its brain. After verifying it works correctly we would proceed to simulating a more complex brain, say a frog. And so on.
This already strains our technical capabilities (at least for the amount of money we are willing to spend on it).
For any animal whose behavior is the product of a lot of learning, and who deals with other such animals in daily life, you have to solve all the problems you had to solve for the fly and also deal with a much larger connectome and also deal with the fact that, until you can passably simulate mouse, you will never be able to simulate the way a mouse learns to behave in the presence of another mouse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m pretty sure simulating fly’s neural inputs would be a far easier task than simulating its brain. After verifying it works correctly we would proceed to simulating a more complex brain, say a frog. And so on.
To simulate the fly's neural input, you need to simulate the fly's entire environment, including fluid dynamics for the air around the fly, the physics of every object the fly interacts with, hormonal responses to changes in the flies blood concentration of various substances (O2, glucose, ...). This already strains our technical capabilities (at least for the amount of money we are willing to spend on it). For any a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To simulate the fly's neural input, you need to simulate the fly's entire environment, including fluid dynamics for the air around the fly, the physics of every object the fly interacts with, hormonal responses to changes in the flies blood concentration of various substances (O2, glucose, ...). This already strains our technical capabilities (at least for the amount of money we are willing to spend on it). For any a…
No need to simulate any of the environment. You only need to record the neural inputs to a fly’s brain. Sure that’s also challenging, but nowhere as challenging as simulating the entire fly’s brain. My point is if you manage to accomplish the latter, the former would be a breeze.
I don't think that's true. As soon as your simulated fly's behavior diverges from the actual fly's, all of the recorded input after that point is invalid/useless because it will not match the simulated fly's position/orientation/whatever.
Also, how many dollar of investment and years into the future do you think we are from being able to record all of a fly's neural input while it is moving freely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need to simulate any of the environment. You only need to record the neural inputs to a fly’s brain. Sure that’s also challenging, but nowhere as challenging as simulating the entire fly’s brain. My point is if you manage to accomplish the latter, the former would be a breeze.
> You only need to record the neural inputs to a fly’s brain. I don't think that's true. As soon as your simulated fly's behavior diverges from the actual fly's, all of the recorded input after that point is invalid/useless because it will not match the simulated fly's position/orientation/whatever. Also, how many dollar of investment and years into the future do you think we are from being able to record all of a fl…
Having a detailed simulation like this would greatly accelerate Numenta's style research, where instead of piecing together information from published papers, you would get it straight from the experiments you control.