7 ms·

So much for no new hardware required for L5

by coob 8y ago

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
Just wait until they admit that they need LIDAR too... Cha Ching! Various Autopilot accidents strongly imply that whatever the computer “brain” is doing doesn’t matter if it doesn’t have sufficient “eyes” to actually see things like a fire truck, cop car, or bollard.
- ethbro 8y ago
  And yet squishy meatbags manage to sensor fuse a stereoscopic image (plus nascient sound based imaging) into a reliably rendered picture of the world...
  - DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
    Our eyes are incredibly advanced compared to any camera in existence, and hooked up to a real life AGI, and we still fuck up. No comparison. We meatbags are still far more sophisticated and battle tested than anything said meatbags managed to build, which is why so much of our building attempts to replicate our own capabilities.
  - azernik 8y ago
    Computer vision is Not There Yet.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Yeah, and they do that with dozens of years of accumulated knowledge. Do not have the impression that what you perceive with your eyes is the photons hitting your retina. All that input is heavily fused with decades of experience in dealing with people and the world.
    - azernik 8y ago
      Experience and some of the most sophisticated evolved machinery in the human brain.
    - ethbro 8y ago
      Where I'm from, small humans typically locomote with around 6-10 months of life experience. And fairly reliably. YMMV
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        Would you be fine with letting a 10 months old walk around town unsupervised? Or drive a car?
        ethbro 8y ago
        If I trained a child to drive, I'd be comfortable letting them drive at 6. I believe I was around that age the first time I drove (handling steering, with assistance on gas / brake). My memory is that the only difficult part was a lack of power steering on hilly terrain. Same age for walking around town unsupervised: the Japanese do and don't seem to lose many. My original point was focused on the technical feasibility of driving with limited sensor input, which is physically possible. Whether or not it takes a week, a month, or a million experience-years is a computational and algorithm problem. All of which (based on previous technological progression) appear to be tractable.
        TeMPOraL 8y ago
        And my point is that it's not just about experience-years, it's also about the breadth of knowledge. When driving, humans do not use just the experience acquired from looking at things from behind the wheel. They also use their general understanding of physics, of materials, of concepts related to visibility, traction, not to mention expected behaviour of other people and how to read face expressions.
        ethbro 8y ago
        For an average driver, I'd call BS on that. Humans are terrible at learning complicated things they rarely have to recall. E.g. the disaster that is the first major snowfall, every year, or automatic transmissions, antilock brakes, and traction control systems becoming standard The human can only reliably be trusted to keep the car between the lines, stop appropriately, and occasionally make turns. Which is something much simpler to compete with!
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    When your "existential crisis killer sentient ai" becomes as smart as this meatbag I'll listen to Elon musk. Till then he and you are out of touch with what computers are capable of
    - ethbro 8y ago
      As someone who works in the field, I'd offer two points. Our intuition about the future is linear. But the reality of information technology is exponential, and that makes a profound difference. If I take 30 steps linearly, I get to 30. If I take 30 steps exponentially, I get to a billion. - Ray Kurzweil People once said the same thing about fire lances.
  - Symmetry 8y ago
    That squishing grey thing in your skull is pulling something in the vicinity of a petaflop of computation in a 10 watt thermal budget. Biological nanotech is a hull of a drug! https://hips.seas.harvard.edu/blog/2013/01/30/what-is-the-computational-capacity-of-the-brain/ https://hips.seas.harvard.edu/blog/2013/01/30/what-is-the-co...
- Retric 8y ago
  They seem to have a rather low number of mistakes per billion miles,* so I don't know if more sensors are actually required. I suspect the larger issue is "To Err is Human; To Really Foul Things Up Requires a Computer" https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12/07/foul-computer/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12/07/foul-computer/ The current model makes assumptions that sometimes turn out to be false. So yea it's not going to get to perfection, but level five only needs better than human not perfection. * Granted I am likely a bad driver, but I don't think I could do this well.
  - DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
    That number always comes up, and it always needs to be said that a billion miles with driver assist and a billion miles under autopilot are not the same, and it’s a bogus figure. As to better than a human, it needs to be better than the humans who buy luxury sedans, sober, and awake. Better than a random selection of humans in a random selection of cars is no good. Conflating all vehicle deaths is like conflating all gun and knife violence; the average person on the streets of Chicago has far less risk of being shot than someone in a gang, or engaged in the commission of a felony. Yet you can make all of Chicago seem like a war zone by conflating the risks of different populations and dumping the raw statistics.
    - Retric 8y ago
      > sober, and awake See you can try to move the goal post, but as soon as they would be saving lives by taking tired or drunk drivers off the road that's very useful.
      - Symmetry 8y ago
        As a matter of practical politics, that actually seems to be what the goalposts are. It might be better if things were different but in practice that's the standard a self driving car is going to need to meet to be accepted and allowed on the road.
  - simion314 8y ago
- xedeon 8y ago
  Again with the LIDAR argument... Humans drive using only eyes (computer vision) and having a sense of location (localization/3D maps). Early autonomous test vehicles used LIDARS because camera and compute tech are not at the same level they are today. It's a legacy system and more of a shortcut. In essence, Object recognition > LIDAR judging distances. Yeah it's true that a vision based system is much harder to solve. However if Tesla cracks it, it will pay dividends.
  - DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
    Again with the LIDAR argument... Humans drive using only eyes (computer vision) and having a sense of location (localization/3D maps). As has been discussed in some depth here before you commented, computer vision hooked up to some ML doesn’t come close to human eyes controlled by a human brain trained for many years. Early autonomous test vehicles used LIDARS because camera and compute tech are not at the same level they are today. It's a legacy system and more of a shortcut. In essence, Object recognition > LIDAR judging distances. Waymo is the cutting edge if you believe what people here say on thread after thread about them, and the raw stats. I’m sure they’ll be interested to hear your view of their “legacy” tech. Yeah it's true that a vision based system is much harder to solve. However if Tesla cracks it, it will pay dividends. Finally, reality. Yes, if they do something they’re yet to do, and their cars stop ramming stationary objects, then maybe something else will happen. No one is contesting that, there are just doubts given the state of Autopilot vs. leaders in the field, not to mention Tesla’s dodgy PR in general, and in the face of fatal incidents in particular.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    LIDAR provides more than just distances. With full-360 LIDAR you also get object edges in 3d space, which means you can do object recognition on the LIDAR results. In other words, you get everything that vision systems would offer except color, without having to do any processing to calculate depth, so you can go straight to the object-recognition and navigation processing. LIDAR > vision systems.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- nickik 8y ago
  Yeah, lets make our analysis on a bunch of early mistakes and draw conclusions from there.
toomuchtodo 8y ago
Does it matter if Tesla does the hardware swap on existing vehicles for free? Costs should not be high to do so if it’s their own silicon and the swap is done as part of regular maintenance at Tesla service centers. The benefit of high margins and sophisticated engineering is you can get away with a lot of unknowns and promises.
- tntn 8y ago
  Yes. It demonstrates that their claims have been complete BS.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    You don’t have to be 100% right to be profitable and have loyal customers (clearly).
    - rohit2412 8y ago
      They'll still sell cars sure. But Elon musk will fall off his narcissistic pedestal. Does that matter? I dunno
      - mrguyorama 8y ago
        I'd sooner bet he find some pedantic way to wiggle out of it
      - nickik 8y ago
        Elon does not fall of anything. He will just admit that he was wrong and move on. Its only Elon Musk haters that somehow want to proclaim every mistake of him as some sort of fall from grace where finally his auro of diseption will be lifted from his victims.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
gfodor 8y ago
When you buy a Model 3 you can choose to pay up front for self driving. I'm assuming that this would be an included upgrade if you did so, so who cares.
- nickik 8y ago
  Not sure why you are downvoted. It was clear from the beginning that you will get as good an autopilote as the car can manage on that hardware. If you pay for self-drive you will get an update. Elon has always said it should be enough and if not you get an upgrade. But some nuonce is lost in all his statments ofter it got threw the hype and couter hype cycle.

So much for no new hardware required for L5

by coob 8y ago

So much for no new hardware required for L5

Just wait until they admit that they need LIDAR too... Cha Ching! Various Autopilot accidents strongly imply that whatever the computer “brain” is doing doesn’t matter if it doesn’t have sufficient “eyes” to actually see things like a fire truck, cop car, or bollard.

ethbro 8y ago
And yet squishy meatbags manage to sensor fuse a stereoscopic image (plus nascient sound based imaging) into a reliably rendered picture of the world...
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  Our eyes are incredibly advanced compared to any camera in existence, and hooked up to a real life AGI, and we still fuck up. No comparison. We meatbags are still far more sophisticated and battle tested than anything said meatbags managed to build, which is why so much of our building attempts to replicate our own capabilities.
- azernik 8y ago
  Computer vision is Not There Yet.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Yeah, and they do that with dozens of years of accumulated knowledge. Do not have the impression that what you perceive with your eyes is the photons hitting your retina. All that input is heavily fused with decades of experience in dealing with people and the world.
  - azernik 8y ago
    Experience and some of the most sophisticated evolved machinery in the human brain.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Where I'm from, small humans typically locomote with around 6-10 months of life experience. And fairly reliably. YMMV
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Would you be fine with letting a 10 months old walk around town unsupervised? Or drive a car?
      - ethbro 8y ago
        If I trained a child to drive, I'd be comfortable letting them drive at 6. I believe I was around that age the first time I drove (handling steering, with assistance on gas / brake). My memory is that the only difficult part was a lack of power steering on hilly terrain. Same age for walking around town unsupervised: the Japanese do and don't seem to lose many. My original point was focused on the technical feasibility of driving with limited sensor input, which is physically possible. Whether or not it takes a week, a month, or a million experience-years is a computational and algorithm problem. All of which (based on previous technological progression) appear to be tractable.
        TeMPOraL 8y ago
        And my point is that it's not just about experience-years, it's also about the breadth of knowledge. When driving, humans do not use just the experience acquired from looking at things from behind the wheel. They also use their general understanding of physics, of materials, of concepts related to visibility, traction, not to mention expected behaviour of other people and how to read face expressions.
        ethbro 8y ago
        For an average driver, I'd call BS on that. Humans are terrible at learning complicated things they rarely have to recall. E.g. the disaster that is the first major snowfall, every year, or automatic transmissions, antilock brakes, and traction control systems becoming standard The human can only reliably be trusted to keep the car between the lines, stop appropriately, and occasionally make turns. Which is something much simpler to compete with!
- rohit2412 8y ago
  When your "existential crisis killer sentient ai" becomes as smart as this meatbag I'll listen to Elon musk. Till then he and you are out of touch with what computers are capable of
  - ethbro 8y ago
    As someone who works in the field, I'd offer two points. Our intuition about the future is linear. But the reality of information technology is exponential, and that makes a profound difference. If I take 30 steps linearly, I get to 30. If I take 30 steps exponentially, I get to a billion. - Ray Kurzweil People once said the same thing about fire lances.
- Symmetry 8y ago
  That squishing grey thing in your skull is pulling something in the vicinity of a petaflop of computation in a 10 watt thermal budget. Biological nanotech is a hull of a drug! https://hips.seas.harvard.edu/blog/2013/01/30/what-is-the-computational-capacity-of-the-brain/ https://hips.seas.harvard.edu/blog/2013/01/30/what-is-the-co...
Retric 8y ago
They seem to have a rather low number of mistakes per billion miles,* so I don't know if more sensors are actually required. I suspect the larger issue is "To Err is Human; To Really Foul Things Up Requires a Computer" https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12/07/foul-computer/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12/07/foul-computer/ The current model makes assumptions that sometimes turn out to be false. So yea it's not going to get to perfection, but level five only needs better than human not perfection. * Granted I am likely a bad driver, but I don't think I could do this well.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  That number always comes up, and it always needs to be said that a billion miles with driver assist and a billion miles under autopilot are not the same, and it’s a bogus figure. As to better than a human, it needs to be better than the humans who buy luxury sedans, sober, and awake. Better than a random selection of humans in a random selection of cars is no good. Conflating all vehicle deaths is like conflating all gun and knife violence; the average person on the streets of Chicago has far less risk of being shot than someone in a gang, or engaged in the commission of a felony. Yet you can make all of Chicago seem like a war zone by conflating the risks of different populations and dumping the raw statistics.
  - Retric 8y ago
    > sober, and awake See you can try to move the goal post, but as soon as they would be saving lives by taking tired or drunk drivers off the road that's very useful.
    - Symmetry 8y ago
      As a matter of practical politics, that actually seems to be what the goalposts are. It might be better if things were different but in practice that's the standard a self driving car is going to need to meet to be accepted and allowed on the road.
- simion314 8y ago
xedeon 8y ago
Again with the LIDAR argument... Humans drive using only eyes (computer vision) and having a sense of location (localization/3D maps). Early autonomous test vehicles used LIDARS because camera and compute tech are not at the same level they are today. It's a legacy system and more of a shortcut. In essence, Object recognition > LIDAR judging distances. Yeah it's true that a vision based system is much harder to solve. However if Tesla cracks it, it will pay dividends.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  Again with the LIDAR argument... Humans drive using only eyes (computer vision) and having a sense of location (localization/3D maps). As has been discussed in some depth here before you commented, computer vision hooked up to some ML doesn’t come close to human eyes controlled by a human brain trained for many years. Early autonomous test vehicles used LIDARS because camera and compute tech are not at the same level they are today. It's a legacy system and more of a shortcut. In essence, Object recognition > LIDAR judging distances. Waymo is the cutting edge if you believe what people here say on thread after thread about them, and the raw stats. I’m sure they’ll be interested to hear your view of their “legacy” tech. Yeah it's true that a vision based system is much harder to solve. However if Tesla cracks it, it will pay dividends. Finally, reality. Yes, if they do something they’re yet to do, and their cars stop ramming stationary objects, then maybe something else will happen. No one is contesting that, there are just doubts given the state of Autopilot vs. leaders in the field, not to mention Tesla’s dodgy PR in general, and in the face of fatal incidents in particular.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  LIDAR provides more than just distances. With full-360 LIDAR you also get object edges in 3d space, which means you can do object recognition on the LIDAR results. In other words, you get everything that vision systems would offer except color, without having to do any processing to calculate depth, so you can go straight to the object-recognition and navigation processing. LIDAR > vision systems.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
nickik 8y ago
Yeah, lets make our analysis on a bunch of early mistakes and draw conclusions from there.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

Does it matter if Tesla does the hardware swap on existing vehicles for free? Costs should not be high to do so if it’s their own silicon and the swap is done as part of regular maintenance at Tesla service centers. The benefit of high margins and sophisticated engineering is you can get away with a lot of unknowns and promises.

tntn 8y ago
Yes. It demonstrates that their claims have been complete BS.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  You don’t have to be 100% right to be profitable and have loyal customers (clearly).
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    They'll still sell cars sure. But Elon musk will fall off his narcissistic pedestal. Does that matter? I dunno
    - mrguyorama 8y ago
      I'd sooner bet he find some pedantic way to wiggle out of it
    - nickik 8y ago
      Elon does not fall of anything. He will just admit that he was wrong and move on. Its only Elon Musk haters that somehow want to proclaim every mistake of him as some sort of fall from grace where finally his auro of diseption will be lifted from his victims.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

gfodor 8y ago

When you buy a Model 3 you can choose to pay up front for self driving. I'm assuming that this would be an included upgrade if you did so, so who cares.

nickik 8y ago
Not sure why you are downvoted. It was clear from the beginning that you will get as good an autopilote as the car can manage on that hardware. If you pay for self-drive you will get an update. Elon has always said it should be enough and if not you get an upgrade. But some nuonce is lost in all his statments ofter it got threw the hype and couter hype cycle.