4 ms·

> Having marginal parts which takes money from a finite R&D budget can easily result in a worse product. "Less sensors can be more safe/effective if that allow

by a1369209993 4y ago

> Having marginal parts which takes money from a finite R&D budget can easily result in a worse product. "Less sensors can be more safe/effective if that allows us to focus on making effective use of the sensor information we do have, which is the result we're aiming for with this descision." would be a reasonable answer (if true), but that doesn't seem like a fair interpretation of what he actually said.

Retric 4y ago
It’s fairly rambling but he touches on that exact point several times most specifically here at the 2 minute mark: “Organizationally it can be very distracting. If all you want to get to work is vision resources are on it and you’re actually making forward progress. That is the sensor with the most bandwidth the most constraints and you’re investing fully into that and you can make that extremely good. You only have a finite amount of spend of focus across different facets of the system.” Which was from this section: Q: “Is it more bloat in the data engine?” “100%” (Q:“is it a distraction?”) “These sensors can change over time.” “Suddenly you need to worry about it. And they will have different distributions. They contribute noise and entropy into everything and they bloat stuff”. Even earlier he says: “These sensors aren’t free…” list of reasons including “you have to fuse them into the system in some way. So that like bloats the organization” “The cost is high and you’re not particularly seeing it if your just a computer vision engineer and I am just trying to improve my network.”
dmix 4y ago
Isn’t that his point though? Where exactly is he not saying that? I listened to his answer three times and I’m not able to come up with a different interpretation than that.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Isn’t that his point though? Where exactly is he not saying that? Andrej eventually gets to it. But his first response was to evade. Lex is a skilled interviewer. By not letting him wriggle out of a difficult question we eventually got a substantive answer. But Andrej's first instinct was to evade. That's notable.
  - dmix 4y ago
    I don't agree Lex is a skilled interviewer, he's great at creating interesting conversations in the aw-shucks way Joe Rogan is, but he mostly plays a fanboy role. I still love a Lex interview. Otherwise I agree.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > don't agree Lex is a skill interviewer Fair enough. Seemingly practiced may be a better description. (I'm not super familiar with his work.)
1123581321 4y ago
That was exactly his point. I listened earlier today. (It being his point doesn’t mean he is necessarily right.)

Retric 4y ago

It’s fairly rambling but he touches on that exact point several times most specifically here at the 2 minute mark: “Organizationally it can be very distracting. If all you want to get to work is vision resources are on it and you’re actually making forward progress. That is the sensor with the most bandwidth the most constraints and you’re investing fully into that and you can make that extremely good. You only have a finite amount of spend of focus across different facets of the system.” Which was from this section: Q: “Is it more bloat in the data engine?” “100%” (Q:“is it a distraction?”) “These sensors can change over time.” “Suddenly you need to worry about it. And they will have different distributions. They contribute noise and entropy into everything and they bloat stuff”. Even earlier he says: “These sensors aren’t free…” list of reasons including “you have to fuse them into the system in some way. So that like bloats the organization” “The cost is high and you’re not particularly seeing it if your just a computer vision engineer and I am just trying to improve my network.”

dmix 4y ago

Isn’t that his point though? Where exactly is he not saying that? I listened to his answer three times and I’m not able to come up with a different interpretation than that.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Isn’t that his point though? Where exactly is he not saying that? Andrej eventually gets to it. But his first response was to evade. Lex is a skilled interviewer. By not letting him wriggle out of a difficult question we eventually got a substantive answer. But Andrej's first instinct was to evade. That's notable.
- dmix 4y ago
  I don't agree Lex is a skilled interviewer, he's great at creating interesting conversations in the aw-shucks way Joe Rogan is, but he mostly plays a fanboy role. I still love a Lex interview. Otherwise I agree.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > don't agree Lex is a skill interviewer Fair enough. Seemingly practiced may be a better description. (I'm not super familiar with his work.)

1123581321 4y ago

That was exactly his point. I listened earlier today. (It being his point doesn’t mean he is necessarily right.)