5 ms·

What will it take to stop them? I believe it's a settled matter that their self driving is fundamentally flawed due to relying on ML and cameras instead of lid

What will it take to stop them? I believe it's a settled matter that their self driving is fundamentally flawed due to relying on ML and cameras instead of lidar. Will it take people dying for the government to step in? Lawsuits? I don't think our politicians are well versed enough in how this works and the level of risk letting this kind of thing happen.

sokoloff 6y ago
Is that a permanently settled matter? When humans drive, they are relying almost exclusively on visual inputs. I don’t see a reason to believe that humans are so far superior at visual processing that no self-driving based on video could best them and many reasons to think that we’re inferior in certain aspects of the task.
- mdorazio 6y ago
  1) Human eyes are superior to any camera system in a Tesla. both in resolution and dynamic range. 2) The human visual system is backed by the equivalent of strong, general AI that intuits and understands the entire world around the vehicle and all objects interacting with it. It is in theory possible for a video-only system to work, but ML is nowhere near the level of development needed for that to be a reality.
  - mlindner 6y ago
    Sure they're superior, but you don't decide whether something is flawed by whether it's superior or not. Our road systems are not designed for the full dynamic range of the human eye, which is why we drive with headlights and we have street lights on highways rather than relying on night vision for all driving. > The human visual system is backed by the equivalent of strong, general AI that intuits and understands the entire world around the vehicle and all objects interacting with it. I think the Human general AI vastly overestimates it's ability to drive and respond to conditions that suddenly appear when driving. > It is in theory possible for a video-only system to work, but ML is nowhere near the level of development needed for that to be a reality. [citation needed]
- candiddevmike 6y ago
  ML shows no signs of achieving intuition, which allows us to predict various scenarios in real time and adjust accordingly.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Does “instead of LIDAR” mean that LIDAR solves that in some significant way?
    - MontyCarloHall 6y ago
      Nope. I don’t think we’ll have Level 5 autonomy with safety on par with human drivers until we have general AI. At that point, whether or not that AGI had LIDAR supplementing its visual inputs becomes irrelevant.
      - ggreer 6y ago
        Doesn’t Wayno already have level 5 autonomous vehicles operating in the Phoenix area? So far they’ve had about 65,000 driverless miles[1] (and 6 million miles with safety drivers). That number should increase pretty quickly now that they’re scaling up their service. So far it seems like the main problem is that they get rear-ended by inattentive human drivers. 1. https://www.engadget.com/waymo-indepth-details-selfdriving-activities-phoenix-163000481.html https://www.engadget.com/waymo-indepth-details-selfdriving-a...
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      With camera-based sensing, you need AI to interpret the inputs in addition to AI for deciding how to react to those inputs. With LIDAR, the job of detecting objects seems to be much simpler. Taking a relatively simple to work around example, you need AI to distinguish lens flare from an object approaching/departing.
      - mlindner 6y ago
        With LIDAR the job of detecting some objects becomes much simpler but for other objects becomes impossible.
- FartyMcFarter 6y ago
  Look at the car's display in this video: https://youtu.be/RN5Qoei7v1k?t=2281 https://youtu.be/RN5Qoei7v1k?t=2281 The "lane" in front of it is wildly moving around, so it's definitely misinterpreting the visual inputs.
  - xeromal 6y ago
    As an owner of a tesla, the rendering on the screen and what the car actually does with the inputs don't always correlate. The rendering is purely for your own viewing pleasure. Hell, there's a disconnect where if you have the new autopilot computer but the old entertainment screen computer, it didn't even have the capability to render anything worthwhile but you still had self driving
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      Given that the rendering on the screen is supposed to be showing the inputs the car thinks it is receiving, it is even more concerning to learn that what the car actually does isn't correlated with the inputs it is receiving.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        That seems intentionally tortured logic. Why would it be a given for the rendering to show the inputs as received rather than being an entertaining caricature loosely related? Surely you don’t think the animations of the car’s battery being charged are realistic in any engineering or physical sense.
        gamblor956 6y ago
        Because Tesla says that it is a rendering of what the car thinks it is seeing, meaning that the rendering is supposed to roughly correlate with the information upon which the FSD systems are acting. In contrast, the animations of a car battery being charged don't claim to be realistic in any sense, and they deliberately attempt not to be realistic: oversized images of batteries or other standardized iconography, stylized arrows or other indicators of charging "flow", etc.
- rainyMammoth 6y ago
  >> Is that a permanently settled matter? When humans drive, they are relying almost exclusively on visual inputs. I really don't understand how so many smart people are repeating this argument over and over. it's one the most flawed arguments that was used by Elon Musk to sell his lack of ability to retrofit lidars in every single car. We also got a single brain, so why can a computer not do what we do?
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  I'm fact I'd argue the opposite is true. It's settled that the endgame of self driving will rely only on visual input, since that is what humans need.
205guy 6y ago
You could short Tesla stock. It is well proven that the free market will correct mistakes like this. /s
SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago
It will take a few serious accidents that most humans would have avoided.

sokoloff 6y ago

Is that a permanently settled matter? When humans drive, they are relying almost exclusively on visual inputs. I don’t see a reason to believe that humans are so far superior at visual processing that no self-driving based on video could best them and many reasons to think that we’re inferior in certain aspects of the task.

mdorazio 6y ago
1) Human eyes are superior to any camera system in a Tesla. both in resolution and dynamic range. 2) The human visual system is backed by the equivalent of strong, general AI that intuits and understands the entire world around the vehicle and all objects interacting with it. It is in theory possible for a video-only system to work, but ML is nowhere near the level of development needed for that to be a reality.
- mlindner 6y ago
  Sure they're superior, but you don't decide whether something is flawed by whether it's superior or not. Our road systems are not designed for the full dynamic range of the human eye, which is why we drive with headlights and we have street lights on highways rather than relying on night vision for all driving. > The human visual system is backed by the equivalent of strong, general AI that intuits and understands the entire world around the vehicle and all objects interacting with it. I think the Human general AI vastly overestimates it's ability to drive and respond to conditions that suddenly appear when driving. > It is in theory possible for a video-only system to work, but ML is nowhere near the level of development needed for that to be a reality. [citation needed]
candiddevmike 6y ago
ML shows no signs of achieving intuition, which allows us to predict various scenarios in real time and adjust accordingly.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Does “instead of LIDAR” mean that LIDAR solves that in some significant way?
  - MontyCarloHall 6y ago
    Nope. I don’t think we’ll have Level 5 autonomy with safety on par with human drivers until we have general AI. At that point, whether or not that AGI had LIDAR supplementing its visual inputs becomes irrelevant.
    - ggreer 6y ago
      Doesn’t Wayno already have level 5 autonomous vehicles operating in the Phoenix area? So far they’ve had about 65,000 driverless miles[1] (and 6 million miles with safety drivers). That number should increase pretty quickly now that they’re scaling up their service. So far it seems like the main problem is that they get rear-ended by inattentive human drivers. 1. https://www.engadget.com/waymo-indepth-details-selfdriving-activities-phoenix-163000481.html https://www.engadget.com/waymo-indepth-details-selfdriving-a...
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    With camera-based sensing, you need AI to interpret the inputs in addition to AI for deciding how to react to those inputs. With LIDAR, the job of detecting objects seems to be much simpler. Taking a relatively simple to work around example, you need AI to distinguish lens flare from an object approaching/departing.
    - mlindner 6y ago
      With LIDAR the job of detecting some objects becomes much simpler but for other objects becomes impossible.
FartyMcFarter 6y ago
Look at the car's display in this video: https://youtu.be/RN5Qoei7v1k?t=2281 https://youtu.be/RN5Qoei7v1k?t=2281 The "lane" in front of it is wildly moving around, so it's definitely misinterpreting the visual inputs.
- xeromal 6y ago
  As an owner of a tesla, the rendering on the screen and what the car actually does with the inputs don't always correlate. The rendering is purely for your own viewing pleasure. Hell, there's a disconnect where if you have the new autopilot computer but the old entertainment screen computer, it didn't even have the capability to render anything worthwhile but you still had self driving
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Given that the rendering on the screen is supposed to be showing the inputs the car thinks it is receiving, it is even more concerning to learn that what the car actually does isn't correlated with the inputs it is receiving.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      That seems intentionally tortured logic. Why would it be a given for the rendering to show the inputs as received rather than being an entertaining caricature loosely related? Surely you don’t think the animations of the car’s battery being charged are realistic in any engineering or physical sense.
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        Because Tesla says that it is a rendering of what the car thinks it is seeing, meaning that the rendering is supposed to roughly correlate with the information upon which the FSD systems are acting. In contrast, the animations of a car battery being charged don't claim to be realistic in any sense, and they deliberately attempt not to be realistic: oversized images of batteries or other standardized iconography, stylized arrows or other indicators of charging "flow", etc.
rainyMammoth 6y ago
>> Is that a permanently settled matter? When humans drive, they are relying almost exclusively on visual inputs. I really don't understand how so many smart people are repeating this argument over and over. it's one the most flawed arguments that was used by Elon Musk to sell his lack of ability to retrofit lidars in every single car. We also got a single brain, so why can a computer not do what we do?
perryizgr8 6y ago
I'm fact I'd argue the opposite is true. It's settled that the endgame of self driving will rely only on visual input, since that is what humans need.

205guy 6y ago

You could short Tesla stock. It is well proven that the free market will correct mistakes like this. /s

SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago

It will take a few serious accidents that most humans would have avoided.