4 ms·
You're right to note the advantages of lidar and (narrow range of) contrast problem for cameras (they arent eyes.) This is why the Uber human driver shouldn't h
by Nomentatus 4y ago
You're right to note the advantages of lidar and (narrow range of) contrast problem for cameras (they arent eyes.) This is why the Uber human driver shouldn't have trusted the machine at night, in particular.
But you still have to address his system argument, which was that adding geegaws that added little would actually increase overall risks along the supply chain (plus maintenance) while distracting the team and adding more risk that way, for very little apparent (but only apparent) gain. The team does believe that they'll get to better than human driving, and do that without lidar.
- Marazan 4y agoThey cannot actually believe that.
- mensetmanusman 4y agoLiDAR has its own false positives that haven’t been solved, so it’s possible they believe that. I certainly was skeptical until alphago and alphafold happened.
- freejazz 4y agoThat's especially amusing considering how if you view Go as a visual problem, it's beyond trivial compared to what is required to safely operate a motor vehicle (even just visually).
- Nomentatus 4y agoYikes. I'd be a lot better Go player if it was just a matter of seeing the board.
- freejazz 4y agoIt is yikes - what's shocking is that you seem to be advocating for that same exact perspective for... driving a car???
- Nomentatus 4y agoNope. There's definitely mapping, and then, much, much more. You're stuffing words in my mouth.
- freejazz 4y agoNot sure if I'm stuffing so much as removing the bluster
- Nomentatus 4y agoAd hominem, but no content.
- Nomentatus 4y agoThere's a new article showing up just today at HN detailing more issues securing supply lines (for libraries and much more) re software; it's a deep problem, not a non-existant problem. But it doesn't have to be malicious actors at work. SpaceX lost a rocket because a supplier's product wasn't built to spec. SpaceX makes that part themselves now, and highly favors vertical integration, which just means making your own sh*t. Just maintaining documentation is a bear. There's another article on HN today detailing an Air Astana near crash because of "improvement" maintenance changes (with poor documentaion) that went very badly wrong.
- freejazz 4y ago"But you still have to address his system argument" Do you? It's his argument that he needs to substantiate... it's not my burden to confirm his conjecture. And even looking at it on its face... it's clearly self-serving bs. It doesn't seem to be a problem for any other car company, so I'm a bit confused as to why it's such a problem for Tesla. Of course, the obvious answer is that Tesla is cheap and doesn't want to pay to have a team that would have sufficient bandwidth to do what every other car company and self-driving system is doing...
- Nomentatus 4y agoYou still have to address the argument he makes that the net effect on risk of keeping the lidar was in fact negative. You're just gainsaying it. That's not a contribution to any discussion.
- freejazz 4y agoI have no doubt that might be the case; as I already explained, it's obviously due to the fact that they are cheap.
- Nomentatus 4y agoSo you're again gainsaying his explanation, but gainsaying says nothing that helps anyone else make a decision. How are the rest of us who aren't psychic to know he's lying?
- freejazz 4y agoI'm not gainsaying his explanation. You don't seem to understand that a function of his explanation is what Tesla is willing to invest and their ability to recoup in a sale of the car.
- Nomentatus 4y agoOy.