4 ms·

You shouldn't need to upload the entire 1gb. The central AI can query the cars to get just the bits it has questions about. Part of the AI's job is learning whi

You shouldn't need to upload the entire 1gb. The central AI can query the cars to get just the bits it has questions about. Part of the AI's job is learning which data to care about and which data to ignore. The fact that the trees got new leaves again this year and it's dark at 2am and the sign at the Chinese Restaurant is still red don't to be relayed. More data isn't automatically better. The hard part isn't getting some magical quantity of data the hard part is asking the right questions of it. A self driving system needs to solve this problem (the frame problem) anyway. So you get intelligence compression for "free". In a sense, intelligence is compression.

cycrutchfield 10y ago
You have essentially just described distributed learning. Only transmit the gradients back to the central server, not the data.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  That'd be one way of doing it. You could also just send the cars experimental queries to upload, and still do the leaning centrally.
solipsism 10y ago
This is naive. You don't know what data you will care about in a year. The ability to have and keep all the data is incredibly valuable.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  Historic data is certainly usable. I'm not sure where your idea comes from that it often provides value far beyond what's in the short term cache. What makes you believe that? How many things happened today that won't happen next week, somewhere? And please don't call me naive. That's rude. Disagree substantively; use your words.
- sqeaky 10y ago
  Why do so many on HN feel the need to structure their responses like this: > Something Rude. Real argument, which is stronger with first sentence removed. You may be right (or wrong, I don't know) but opening with rudeness or insults makes it more difficult to have meaningful conversations.
  - solipsism 10y ago
    Rudeness? Insults? I said "this is naive", not "you are naive." Surely we're all adults and can talk about ideas candidly without having to beat around the bush and tell each other little white lies. A while ago you told someone, "You speak in broad generalizations that miss many points and make many faulty assumptions. " Any difference between your statement and mine comes down to how individuals respond to specific words. How about we rise above such pettiness and focus on the subject matter? You've added nothing to this discussion and have wasted people's time.
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      > You've added nothing to this discussion and have wasted people's time. What is your response doing?

cycrutchfield 10y ago

You have essentially just described distributed learning. Only transmit the gradients back to the central server, not the data.

erikpukinskis 10y ago
That'd be one way of doing it. You could also just send the cars experimental queries to upload, and still do the leaning centrally.

solipsism 10y ago

This is naive. You don't know what data you will care about in a year. The ability to have and keep all the data is incredibly valuable.

erikpukinskis 10y ago
Historic data is certainly usable. I'm not sure where your idea comes from that it often provides value far beyond what's in the short term cache. What makes you believe that? How many things happened today that won't happen next week, somewhere? And please don't call me naive. That's rude. Disagree substantively; use your words.
sqeaky 10y ago
Why do so many on HN feel the need to structure their responses like this: > Something Rude. Real argument, which is stronger with first sentence removed. You may be right (or wrong, I don't know) but opening with rudeness or insults makes it more difficult to have meaningful conversations.
- solipsism 10y ago
  Rudeness? Insults? I said "this is naive", not "you are naive." Surely we're all adults and can talk about ideas candidly without having to beat around the bush and tell each other little white lies. A while ago you told someone, "You speak in broad generalizations that miss many points and make many faulty assumptions. " Any difference between your statement and mine comes down to how individuals respond to specific words. How about we rise above such pettiness and focus on the subject matter? You've added nothing to this discussion and have wasted people's time.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    > You've added nothing to this discussion and have wasted people's time. What is your response doing?