3 ms·
Disagree. It’s easy to see how far FSD has progressed, there’s lots of videos to document how far it’s gone from then and today. It’s also not easy to say they’
by extheat 4y ago
Disagree. It’s easy to see how far FSD has progressed, there’s lots of videos to document how far it’s gone from then and today. It’s also not easy to say they’ve reached the point of diminishing returns (which generally takes a massive amount of data to hit, even GPT3 has not hit it) as it’s not clear how much of FSD is powered by heuristic based code and what is NNs. Judging by some of the discussions there’s still a significant amount of C/C++ code in the loop that could be improved by moving them to NNs.
- lelanthran 4y ago> Disagree. It’s easy to see how far FSD has progressed, there’s lots of videos to document how far it’s gone from then and today. Yeah, but videos aren't objective metrics. For me, an objective metric is "went $FOO miles in $BAR conditions without needing any intervention". What would you consider an objective metric?
- ra7 4y agoActually, intervention is also not the best metric. The best metric is driverless miles. Removing the driver is the true test of autonomy.
- popinman322 4y ago> "went $FOO miles in $BAR conditions without needing any intervention" But who decides whether intervention was necessary? This is still too vague.
- lelanthran 4y ago> But who decides whether intervention was necessary? This is still too vague. Irrelevant - until the car has actually gone without an intervention for whatever the median is for human drivers[1], we can't very well claim that it is safe for use. [1] The average human driver goes hundreds of thousands of kilometers without crashing.