3 ms·

Very much so. The tens of thousands of hours of training is like the learning babies do while looking at jangling keys. Then the driving part is more static --

Very much so. The tens of thousands of hours of training is like the learning babies do while looking at jangling keys. Then the driving part is more static -- I'm not sure that it's entirely regular programming, there may be some training of models there. But my understanding is it's certainly not learning/training _while_ driving, and _almost_ certainly it's not even learning to drive. It's just doing more learning for object detection and tracking, like a baby watching the world from a pram. So I feel like no matter how many autonomous hours these cars accumulate on the road, they have effectively 0 hours of "learning to drive".

Jensson 5y ago
> I'm not sure that it's entirely regular programming, there may be some training of models there I doubt it, not anything serious at least. Machine learning isn't at the level where it can be used to navigate environments better than human coded algorithms can. Maybe if you had a datacenter worth of computing power to do it, like AlphaStar, but you don't have that in a car. And even if you had that I still doubt it, Alphastar had a perfect representation of the game and could simulate the effects of moves perfectly.
- dundarious 5y ago
  Agreed, I was trying to suggest that if it's not 100% static code, it's something like 1% models, 99% static code.
thrashh 5y ago
I think the only (but very major) difference is that is that animals and humans learn general knowledge. Someone with 100 hours of driving also has 16+ years of additional general learning. A driving AI has no general knowledge. It doesn’t actually understand what it is looking at. It’s not possible to make up reasonable responses consistently when you don’t know what you are looking at most of the time, machine or human. Have you ever tried to solve a technical problem before you read the documentation covering the basic concepts? You’re basically throwing shit at the wall until something sticks.

Jensson 5y ago

> I'm not sure that it's entirely regular programming, there may be some training of models there I doubt it, not anything serious at least. Machine learning isn't at the level where it can be used to navigate environments better than human coded algorithms can. Maybe if you had a datacenter worth of computing power to do it, like AlphaStar, but you don't have that in a car. And even if you had that I still doubt it, Alphastar had a perfect representation of the game and could simulate the effects of moves perfectly.

dundarious 5y ago
Agreed, I was trying to suggest that if it's not 100% static code, it's something like 1% models, 99% static code.

thrashh 5y ago

I think the only (but very major) difference is that is that animals and humans learn general knowledge. Someone with 100 hours of driving also has 16+ years of additional general learning. A driving AI has no general knowledge. It doesn’t actually understand what it is looking at. It’s not possible to make up reasonable responses consistently when you don’t know what you are looking at most of the time, machine or human. Have you ever tried to solve a technical problem before you read the documentation covering the basic concepts? You’re basically throwing shit at the wall until something sticks.