4 ms·

Unlikely about battery capacity and range. Tesla have consistently delivered in that side of things. The core of their car business is solid. Their problem on

by gutnor 7y ago

Unlikely about battery capacity and range. Tesla have consistently delivered in that side of things. The core of their car business is solid. Their problem on the production side is not surprising. Missing deadlines and production targets is business as usual for "startups" (between quotes because they are massive, however still very much a new and small player in that field) "We will deliver million of widget in 2 years for $20" really means "we will deliver 100K widget in 5 years for $40" with the enthousiasm you expect of a company at that stage. Every claim around autonomous driving have been bullshit and they have doubled down on their bullshit instead of owning up. The grandiose announcement, Trumpish tweeting and technical presentation that carefully avoid talking about the current technical issue they must have solved ? That smells like they are trippling down. They avoid false advertising by kicking the can down the road further. eg: they aggressively talk down LIDAR because their current car do not have it but they are bound by their claim that every car is fully autonomous ready.

mmsimanga 7y ago
Missing deadlines and production targets is business as usual for "startups" I wouldn't just limit this to startups. Software development is a field where we sometimes struggle to deliver on time.
Isinlor 7y ago
Independent researchers have already proven Musk to be 100% right about LIDAR. Pseudo-LiDAR from Visual Depth Estimation: Bridging the Gap in 3D Object Detection for Autonomous Driving https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.07179 https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.07179 3D object detection is an essential task in autonomous driving. Recent techniques excel with highly accurate detection rates, provided the 3D input data is obtained from precise but expensive LiDAR technology. Approaches based on cheaper monocular or stereo imagery data have, until now, resulted in drastically lower accuracies --- a gap that is commonly attributed to poor image-based depth estimation. However, in this paper we argue that data representation (rather than its quality) accounts for the majority of the difference. Taking the inner workings of convolutional neural networks into consideration, we propose to convert image-based depth maps to pseudo-LiDAR representations --- essentially mimicking LiDAR signal. With this representation we can apply different existing LiDAR-based detection algorithms. On the popular KITTI benchmark, our approach achieves impressive improvements over the existing state-of-the-art in image-based performance --- raising the detection accuracy of objects within 30m range from the previous state-of-the-art of 22% to an unprecedented 74%. At the time of submission our algorithm holds the highest entry on the KITTI 3D object detection leaderboard for stereo image based approaches. Karpathy was also pointing to: Depth from Videos in the Wild: Unsupervised Monocular Depth Learning from Unknown Cameras https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.04998 https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.04998 We present a novel method for simultaneous learning of depth, egomotion, object motion, and camera intrinsics from monocular videos, using only consistency across neighboring video frames as supervision signal. Similarly to prior work, our method learns by applying differentiable warping to frames and comparing the result to adjacent ones, but it provides several improvements: We address occlusions geometrically and differentiably, directly using the depth maps as predicted during training. We introduce randomized layer normalization, a novel powerful regularizer, and we account for object motion relative to the scene. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to learn the camera intrinsic parameters, including lens distortion, from video in an unsupervised manner, thereby allowing us to extract accurate depth and motion from arbitrary videos of unknown origin at scale. We evaluate our results on the Cityscapes, KITTI and EuRoC datasets, establishing new state of the art on depth prediction and odometry, and demonstrate qualitatively that depth prediction can be learned from a collection of YouTube videos. Tesla has also advantage of having radars and is able to do supervised learning of depth estimates for moving objects from video. I was also skeptical of Tesla self-driving capability, because they had some stupid ideas, like ignoring radar data based on GPS tagging from fleet behavior. But lack of LIDAR will not be the issue. Not even close. It seems like they are focusing on building proper pipeline for training neural networks. The question is whether neural networks as a technology can handle self driving. Reasoning based on "human brain can do it, so artificial neural networks can do it" is wrong. Natural neural networks and artificial neural networks, besides name share only very, very rough low level conceptual ideas. Moreover, our ANN architectures are probably missing most of what brains do on high level. So, I think this is still an open question - can ANN do it? If not, then nobody will have full self driving capability widely deployed any time soon. Because, even tough neural networks are not perfect, everything else is super brittle in comparison. LIDAR and hires maps are technologies that give working short-term solution, are sort of local minimum. LIDAR is super expensive and already proven to be not necessary. While, hires maps are super brittle and too capital intensive to be widely deployed. But if neural networks are sufficient Tesla will leave everyone in dust. There will be literally no competition. They do not need to learn electric cars manufacturing in order to deploy their technology widely, they are doing that already. They will not need to backtrack on LIDAR and hires maps solutions. Also, their decision to deploy self driving hardware to every car means that they have access to stupidly big amount of real world data from all varieties of environments all around the world. BTW - Extrapolating based what Tesla was doing before Karpathy joined is probably misguided. I was afraid that he will get lost in a big corporation, but he seems to be doing great job there. In my opinion technology that build with his supervision will be significantly better than what Tesla was doing before. But Karpathy is not a magician. So, Tesla has the biggest potential and the big question is: Are neural networks sufficient for self driving?
- navigatesol 7y ago
  >Independent researchers have already proven Musk to be 100% right about LIDAR. Well, you better let all the other smart people doing this work know! They're all doomed! Why do you think it's one or the other-neural nets and LIDAR-, and not both? The more sensors the better.
  - Isinlor 7y ago
    Look at the dates of the papers I linked. The quote: Approaches based on cheaper monocular or stereo imagery data have, until now, resulted in drastically lower accuracies --- a gap that is commonly attributed to poor image-based depth estimation. However, in this paper we argue that data representation (rather than its quality) accounts for the majority of the difference. Is from December 2018. Your knowledge of what smart people think is currently outdated, because the new results are so recent. I also agree that Musk was making claims about no need for LIDAR based on his intuition. He could have been terribly wrong, because it was just his intuition. But he is not wrong. BTW - Smart people were wrong about AI many times. They were wrong about ANN being dead end in eighties, they were wrong about symbolic AI. They were also wrong about necessity of LIDAR. In a year of two they will update their believes as more evidence will be piling up.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - leesec 7y ago
    I've mentioned this before but, how many technologies do you see companies working on where they say, "well we have one approach we think is gonna work, but we're also going to spend a ton of resources and time developing this other solution that we don't think is going to work, that would be useless if the first approach does work. Oh and it would make our cars 5k more expensive at least."
  - Faark 7y ago
    Because the question isn't about what a theoretical best system consists of. No one (including Musk) denies more sensors could theoretically be beneficial. Adding a gravitational wave detector to your car would ensure the car doesn't accidentally drive into black holes, making it more safe. This additional safety would not be economical. Same principle with LIDAR. Adding $5k hardware per car and a ton of R&D doesn't seem economical to Tesla, since they think they can get pretty much the same with just their current sensor suit. Time will tell if they are right and what AP + sensor suite customers will choose.
dwighttk 7y ago
>but they are bound by their claim that every car is fully autonomous ready. are they? Didn't they already claim that for cars with the previous generation of computer?
- jsight 7y ago
  Yes, by promising an upgrade.
Phase_White 7y ago
Missing production deadlines and Targets is also common for all other existing OEMs as they keep promising X EV model will be introduced in 2018, err 2019, err 2020, err 2021 etc Like it or not Tesla is the only OEM actually deploying autonomous tech in mass in a consumer vehicle. NOA is basically a Level 2 system which can do all highway driving by it's self including checking blind spots, changing lanes, taking exits.

by gutnor 7y ago

mmsimanga 7y ago

Missing deadlines and production targets is business as usual for "startups" I wouldn't just limit this to startups. Software development is a field where we sometimes struggle to deliver on time.

Isinlor 7y ago

Independent researchers have already proven Musk to be 100% right about LIDAR. Pseudo-LiDAR from Visual Depth Estimation: Bridging the Gap in 3D Object Detection for Autonomous Driving https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.07179 https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.07179 3D object detection is an essential task in autonomous driving. Recent techniques excel with highly accurate detection rates, provided the 3D input data is obtained from precise but expensive LiDAR technology. Approaches based on cheaper monocular or stereo imagery data have, until now, resulted in drastically lower accuracies --- a gap that is commonly attributed to poor image-based depth estimation. However, in this paper we argue that data representation (rather than its quality) accounts for the majority of the difference. Taking the inner workings of convolutional neural networks into consideration, we propose to convert image-based depth maps to pseudo-LiDAR representations --- essentially mimicking LiDAR signal. With this representation we can apply different existing LiDAR-based detection algorithms. On the popular KITTI benchmark, our approach achieves impressive improvements over the existing state-of-the-art in image-based performance --- raising the detection accuracy of objects within 30m range from the previous state-of-the-art of 22% to an unprecedented 74%. At the time of submission our algorithm holds the highest entry on the KITTI 3D object detection leaderboard for stereo image based approaches. Karpathy was also pointing to: Depth from Videos in the Wild: Unsupervised Monocular Depth Learning from Unknown Cameras https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.04998 https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.04998 We present a novel method for simultaneous learning of depth, egomotion, object motion, and camera intrinsics from monocular videos, using only consistency across neighboring video frames as supervision signal. Similarly to prior work, our method learns by applying differentiable warping to frames and comparing the result to adjacent ones, but it provides several improvements: We address occlusions geometrically and differentiably, directly using the depth maps as predicted during training. We introduce randomized layer normalization, a novel powerful regularizer, and we account for object motion relative to the scene. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to learn the camera intrinsic parameters, including lens distortion, from video in an unsupervised manner, thereby allowing us to extract accurate depth and motion from arbitrary videos of unknown origin at scale. We evaluate our results on the Cityscapes, KITTI and EuRoC datasets, establishing new state of the art on depth prediction and odometry, and demonstrate qualitatively that depth prediction can be learned from a collection of YouTube videos. Tesla has also advantage of having radars and is able to do supervised learning of depth estimates for moving objects from video. I was also skeptical of Tesla self-driving capability, because they had some stupid ideas, like ignoring radar data based on GPS tagging from fleet behavior. But lack of LIDAR will not be the issue. Not even close. It seems like they are focusing on building proper pipeline for training neural networks. The question is whether neural networks as a technology can handle self driving. Reasoning based on "human brain can do it, so artificial neural networks can do it" is wrong. Natural neural networks and artificial neural networks, besides name share only very, very rough low level conceptual ideas. Moreover, our ANN architectures are probably missing most of what brains do on high level. So, I think this is still an open question - can ANN do it? If not, then nobody will have full self driving capability widely deployed any time soon. Because, even tough neural networks are not perfect, everything else is super brittle in comparison. LIDAR and hires maps are technologies that give working short-term solution, are sort of local minimum. LIDAR is super expensive and already proven to be not necessary. While, hires maps are super brittle and too capital intensive to be widely deployed. But if neural networks are sufficient Tesla will leave everyone in dust. There will be literally no competition. They do not need to learn electric cars manufacturing in order to deploy their technology widely, they are doing that already. They will not need to backtrack on LIDAR and hires maps solutions. Also, their decision to deploy self driving hardware to every car means that they have access to stupidly big amount of real world data from all varieties of environments all around the world. BTW - Extrapolating based what Tesla was doing before Karpathy joined is probably misguided. I was afraid that he will get lost in a big corporation, but he seems to be doing great job there. In my opinion technology that build with his supervision will be significantly better than what Tesla was doing before. But Karpathy is not a magician. So, Tesla has the biggest potential and the big question is: Are neural networks sufficient for self driving?

navigatesol 7y ago
>Independent researchers have already proven Musk to be 100% right about LIDAR. Well, you better let all the other smart people doing this work know! They're all doomed! Why do you think it's one or the other-neural nets and LIDAR-, and not both? The more sensors the better.
- Isinlor 7y ago
  Look at the dates of the papers I linked. The quote: Approaches based on cheaper monocular or stereo imagery data have, until now, resulted in drastically lower accuracies --- a gap that is commonly attributed to poor image-based depth estimation. However, in this paper we argue that data representation (rather than its quality) accounts for the majority of the difference. Is from December 2018. Your knowledge of what smart people think is currently outdated, because the new results are so recent. I also agree that Musk was making claims about no need for LIDAR based on his intuition. He could have been terribly wrong, because it was just his intuition. But he is not wrong. BTW - Smart people were wrong about AI many times. They were wrong about ANN being dead end in eighties, they were wrong about symbolic AI. They were also wrong about necessity of LIDAR. In a year of two they will update their believes as more evidence will be piling up.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- leesec 7y ago
  I've mentioned this before but, how many technologies do you see companies working on where they say, "well we have one approach we think is gonna work, but we're also going to spend a ton of resources and time developing this other solution that we don't think is going to work, that would be useless if the first approach does work. Oh and it would make our cars 5k more expensive at least."
- Faark 7y ago
  Because the question isn't about what a theoretical best system consists of. No one (including Musk) denies more sensors could theoretically be beneficial. Adding a gravitational wave detector to your car would ensure the car doesn't accidentally drive into black holes, making it more safe. This additional safety would not be economical. Same principle with LIDAR. Adding $5k hardware per car and a ton of R&D doesn't seem economical to Tesla, since they think they can get pretty much the same with just their current sensor suit. Time will tell if they are right and what AP + sensor suite customers will choose.

dwighttk 7y ago

>but they are bound by their claim that every car is fully autonomous ready. are they? Didn't they already claim that for cars with the previous generation of computer?

jsight 7y ago
Yes, by promising an upgrade.

Phase_White 7y ago

Missing production deadlines and Targets is also common for all other existing OEMs as they keep promising X EV model will be introduced in 2018, err 2019, err 2020, err 2021 etc Like it or not Tesla is the only OEM actually deploying autonomous tech in mass in a consumer vehicle. NOA is basically a Level 2 system which can do all highway driving by it's self including checking blind spots, changing lanes, taking exits.