4 ms·

> Is it? If we ignore compute requirements, how long would a good algorithm take to learn something like balancing a quadrupedal robot Seems easy but why don't

> Is it? If we ignore compute requirements, how long would a good algorithm take to learn something like balancing a quadrupedal robot Seems easy but why don't we have self driving cars by now? Walking it not just a mechanical task. Your quadcopter is not learning to interpret raw electrical signals from an IMS and raw electrical signals from a CMOS sensor. The training is also probably done in a simulator, where if it breaks, it is reset and training continues. A horse is learning to interpret inner ear signals and signals from the optical nerve AND the using those to build a spatial map of the environment. Only then it is actually trying to walk. A 2 hour old baby horse can not only run on not-flat terrain but is spatially and environmentally aware. It has taken years for Boston Dynamics to develop a platform that is equivalent to a pack horse and even then probably can't respond independently to never-seen-before threats or challenges.

smegger001 5y ago
Because the average first time driver is primed with approximately 15 years of training data from observation of not just driving deriving a complex physics model, object detection and identification system, spacial reasoning, natural language comprehensions, theory of mind able to predict behavior of other drivers based on subtle cues, and teen drivers are still awful at it as a rule with much higher accident rate. Trying to build a neural net or set of neural nets that can do all of those jobs is a daunting task and no one has the time to train the artificial neural network for 15 years. that's why we don't have safe self driving cares yet. as for the horse, well 50 millions of years of evolution on constantly refined genetic algorithm is hard to beat and that was on top of the evolution of the eohippus as a starting point
retrac 5y ago
We do have self-driving cars we just don't have any we think are good enough, well-tested, and adaptable to mixed-use driving and our various regulatory and safety and cultural needs. You can't get regulatory approval for a car that learns to drive by guided trial and error in the wild -- which is the most direct way of training such a thing. Feedback on what you shouldn't drive over also isn't as immediate and unambiguous, compared to whether gravity will topple it over.

smegger001 5y ago

Because the average first time driver is primed with approximately 15 years of training data from observation of not just driving deriving a complex physics model, object detection and identification system, spacial reasoning, natural language comprehensions, theory of mind able to predict behavior of other drivers based on subtle cues, and teen drivers are still awful at it as a rule with much higher accident rate. Trying to build a neural net or set of neural nets that can do all of those jobs is a daunting task and no one has the time to train the artificial neural network for 15 years. that's why we don't have safe self driving cares yet. as for the horse, well 50 millions of years of evolution on constantly refined genetic algorithm is hard to beat and that was on top of the evolution of the eohippus as a starting point

retrac 5y ago

We do have self-driving cars we just don't have any we think are good enough, well-tested, and adaptable to mixed-use driving and our various regulatory and safety and cultural needs. You can't get regulatory approval for a car that learns to drive by guided trial and error in the wild -- which is the most direct way of training such a thing. Feedback on what you shouldn't drive over also isn't as immediate and unambiguous, compared to whether gravity will topple it over.