Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we need to look at the assumptions made. Has Musk and Zuck actually improved the world or merely reorganised it to gain market for their ideological purposes? Delivery or not doesn't imply improvement. Progress for the sake of progress is not necessarily an improvement either.
I am quite happy to hear "progress for the sake of progress is not necessarily an improvement either", as that is indeed true. What ideological purposes do you think Musk has? What is the ideology he is pushing building rockets and electric cars?
Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud
361–370 of 394 posts
Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud
#362I welcome the public's acknowledgement that self-driving vehicles are completely infeasible for even the medium term future. It's just unfortunate that the trigger for this change seems not to be anything about snow, or the inability to replicate human flocking on buried/unmarked roads during winter, etc, but instead more about the current political fallout from Musk's take-over of Twitter.
This is a weird amount of hubris for someone who either doesn't understand the goals of current work on self-driving cars or is just clueless about the field. Tesla's attempts at self-driving capture absolutely nothing besides... Tesla's attempts at self-driving. There are companies with realistic sensor stacks, not artificially imposing restrictions so they can pre-sell their results, actually focused on self-drivin…
Dismissing "snow" as something that happens only in "the frozen tundra" is fairly provincial. You'd be surprised by how much of the USA (and other industrialized countries) have roads and road edges mostly obscured by snow for weeks at a time multiple times throughout winter. There's a reason almost all autonomous driving tests are done in places like Arizona. And the ones done in winter settings tend to be absolute positioning based (ground penetrating radar maps, etc) or non-human vision modalities which don't actually match how human drivers flock.
Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you give me $10,000 today, tomorrow I will deliver your car" ... Three years later: "I'll deliver your car tomorrow"
Sounds like a contract with specific terms! If we’re going to look at this as a contract, we’re going to need more than intuition: we’re going to need some contract law, and we’re probably going to need to look at all the disclosures and fine print involved in the purchase of FSD.
Fraud does not need a contract. My understanding is that it has three elements: First, the perpetrator has to provide a false statement as a material fact. Second, the perpetrator had to have known that the statement was untrue. Third, the perpetrator had to have intended to deceive the victim.
Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
My opinion doesn’t matter, but your last point resonates with me because this struck me as totally bizarre too. I don’t work in sensing let alone using AI with sensing data, but I’m around it a lot and my second-hand knowledge kind of set off some red flags. In remote sensing for landscape architecture, hydrography, and other similar fields (making sense of static things where no one is at risk of dying immediately,…
> Yet Tesla comes out saying “we’ve got some mediocre cameras and we’re gonna run with it!” To be fair, humans managed to solve self-driving with some mediocre cameras, some crappy microphones, and some unreliable force-feedback and chemical sensors, without (importantly) adding any new sensors to the hardware between start-of-project and successful full driving. So it's not a priori implausible that "use whatever se…
The difference here is that our “cameras” are processed in ways we really don’t understand and at speeds we can’t seem to compete with yet (at least not with the quality of processing we have, so far).
Our sight is also enhanced by our hearing or familiarity with certain driving situations and, in most cases, familiarity with certain places we drive frequently.
If we isolated our eyes from our other senses I have a feeling we might actually be much worse at detecting things around us or making sense of what we’re seeing.
Our senses like road feel can even help us use our eyes in anticipation of dangerous conditions like loose gravel or black ice.
I know machines can do this too, but ours works so well and so quickly; it’s hard to compare with what’s on the market at the moment.
Regardless, I think we agree on the final point. Such a strange way to limit a self driving car.
Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
My opinion doesn’t matter, but your last point resonates with me because this struck me as totally bizarre too. I don’t work in sensing let alone using AI with sensing data, but I’m around it a lot and my second-hand knowledge kind of set off some red flags. In remote sensing for landscape architecture, hydrography, and other similar fields (making sense of static things where no one is at risk of dying immediately,…
> Yet Tesla comes out saying “we’ve got some mediocre cameras and we’re gonna run with it!” To be fair, humans managed to solve self-driving with some mediocre cameras, some crappy microphones, and some unreliable force-feedback and chemical sensors, without (importantly) adding any new sensors to the hardware between start-of-project and successful full driving. So it's not a priori implausible that "use whatever se…
Not to take away from your core point, but I wouldn't say the human sensory system is mediocre.
Your eyes are sensitive enough to see a candle flame at 2.6 km away. A rod can actually be stimulated by a single photon, but the brain squelches activation that small. The human ear is sensitive enough to hear a watch tick from about 20 feet away in a quiet room. That's pretty darn good.
Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is with this Cult of Elon? I really don't care who the CEO is, I love my Model 3. It costs me literally one sixth the cost per kilometer than my previous Nissan was costing, when comparing the cost of electricity and gas. And that's before considering that I haven't had to change the oil or do any other scheduled maintenance in the 35000 or so KM I've put on it. And it's not just the price. My kids who previousl…
The CEOs of those other car companies were not raging egotists backed up by a crowd of howler monkeys chasing a parasocial dopamine hit.
> The CEOs of those other car companies were not raging egotists
> backed up by a crowd of howler monkeys chasing a parasocial dopamine hit.
Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud
#367Recently I've read lidar is in again, is this correct?
Tesla never used lidar. They did use a low-resolution radar and dropped it because they felt it was holding back their vision-based development. At the time, Musk commented that radar was not useful unless it were higher resolution. There have been credible rumors of an upcoming addition of high-resolution radar to the Tesla sensor suite, consistent with Musk's earlier remarks.
Thanks, I have not enough of a clue here.
Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans often drive in conditions were it's unsafe -- icy roads, dense fog, heavy rain, strong winds. We take the risk, and most times it's okay, except for the occasional pile-up on the highway. But I don't think a "full self-driving" car refusing to drive in those conditions would be a deal breaker. I'd prefer it if autonomous vehicles were more conservative and just refused to drive in unsafe conditions.
Right. But you then end in a sport where driver barely does any driving 99% of the time but the 1% they do need to drive, they are out of any practice for normal driving, let alone in hard conditions. We already had problems back when people started coming back from mandatory WFH and accident rate spiked, this would be essentially similar or worse, a bunch of drivers that might do 10k miles a year but drive 500 of th…
I'm not sure that experience with driving in normal conditions actually helps when driving in dense fog or on icy roads. People are overconfident and drive just like they normally would, which is why the pile-ups happen every time we have worse than usual road conditions.
Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's stopping someone from predefining it to mean "Only within a specific parking lot"? And then claiming they achieved Level 4?
Nothing. That is the definition of level 4. Level 5 is no restrictions.
Seems like a silly way of assessing levels of autonomy then. Maybe it doesn't make sense to allow it to be predefined to an arbitrarily small area?
Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m not sure how the phrase “full self-driving” could mean anything other than that. There is some room to argue about the conditions under which the car can drive itself. If the car couldn't handle a high-grade, winding mountain road with an inch of snow on the ground and yet more coming down, I don't think too many people would be fussed is a "full self-driving" car said "uh, no" (especially as a good fraction of…
Humans often drive in conditions were it's unsafe -- icy roads, dense fog, heavy rain, strong winds. We take the risk, and most times it's okay, except for the occasional pile-up on the highway. But I don't think a "full self-driving" car refusing to drive in those conditions would be a deal breaker. I'd prefer it if autonomous vehicles were more conservative and just refused to drive in unsafe conditions.
A lot like a git merge, then :)