5 ms·

That kind of attitude is great for editor or compiler or game development. It is absolutely the wrong attitude for self-driving cars or anything that is safety

That kind of attitude is great for editor or compiler or game development. It is absolutely the wrong attitude for self-driving cars or anything that is safety critical.

1980phipsi 4y ago
To be fair, he was recently in the news saying self-driving cars are a scam. https://cleantechnica.com/2022/10/09/george-hotz-autonomous-cars-are-a-scam-connected-cars-may-be-the-new-thing/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/10/09/george-hotz-autonomous-...
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Self driving car companies, not cars are the scam. And he has been saying the same thing for years.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- jeffbee 4y ago
  "I am a charlatan and therefore this whole industry is a scam" does not have great logic to it.
- collegeburner 4y ago
  "I couldn't get this working so nobody else can either". Classic gifted kid response to failure tbh.
- thepasswordis 4y ago
  >autonomous cars are no closer to reality today than they were 5 years ago Why do people keep printing things like this, which are objectively wrong? I have had a completely autonomous waymo come to my location, pick me up, and take me to another location. That didn't exist five years ago, it does exist now. How is this not "closer" than it was 5 years ago when it literally exists now, and didn't exist then?
  - cjbgkagh 4y ago
    I think it’s the hard parts are still just as hard.
  - Barrin92 4y ago
    because that's like arguing that because you can now climb your way up a tree which you couldn't do five years ago you're closer to climbing to the moon. Self-driving is still incredibly limited and progress is often overstated because people make headway on some tiny issue. A thing I always liked for people who think progress is rapid, this is Germany in the 1980s where Ernst Dickmann had autonmous cars drive thousands of miles: https://youtu.be/_HbVWm7wdmE https://youtu.be/_HbVWm7wdmE
    - thepasswordis 4y ago
      What? No, it would be like if somebody said "some day we will travel to the moon", and then after the Apollo missions there were articles being published that said "we are no closer to traveling to the moon than we were 5 years ago". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHdKm0kW4l0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHdKm0kW4l0 This is a video of a person riding in a fully self driving car.
      - Kbelicius 4y ago
        That is not a fully self driving car in the sense of what people think when they say a fully self driving car or are you saying that I could order that car and it will drive me to New York under any conditions that a human would drive through?
        jodrellblank 4y ago
        I wrote the below comment, then watched the video, then deleted the comment; I say that the hard part is the human level understanding which doesn't exist. Watching the video it's notably in a clear, bright, flat, low-traffic, wide-road, few-people, few parked-cars, little going on, ideal conditions. But why hold to my position in the comment below, if that clearly is a self-driving car, just because it isn't climbing a slippery hill at dusk by people double-parked outside a nightclub with drunk people stumbling around. If it can get to useful amounts of humanless driving in real-world conditions which were not custom made for them, that has to count for something. ---- Eliezer Yudkowsky is fond of shitting on the AI developers of the 1960s for thinking they could write `APPLE` in the source code of a symbolic language and that that made them weeks away from a human intelligence which could reason about apples, and how simplistic that looks now. Like YouTube auto-transcribed subtitles are useful but they are obviously transcribing sounds without understanding, they lack understanding of where the context indicates that a spoken thing should be a name, or they will transcribe the same word two different ways in two different sentences with no understanding that it was the same object as before being referred to again, or where a sound is unclear I can fill in what was intended but the auto transcriber can't, or I can see from lip movement that the transcription was wrong, the audio processor can't integrate multiple inputs in that way, and they will transcribe sentences which are grammatically correct but human background knowledge of the world tells you it makes no sense. Similar with self driving cars, it's pretty clear from the outside that you can't have a car which can reason about the state of a city, its roads, the things in the roads, the environmental conditions, without having a large amount of interconnected human level background understanding of the world and the things in it. e.g. not just seeing a shape and identifying it as a cyclist, but knowing that you passed a cyclist a few seconds ago and now you are slowing down for traffic lights the cyclist will be coming back alongside you momentarily. Not just identifying a parked car, but seeing a car stop moving and turn its lights off as it parks implies the doors are about to open. Not just seeing lane markers in the road, but seeing no lane markers and being able to complete the pattern of where the lane markers should be because you understand how humans design roads. Not just seeing rain and slowing down, but the hinkiness feeling of "these conditions are dangerous" from the way other cars are driving, the road conditions, and slowing down in advance of anything objectively happening because you predict what could happen. Not just seeing a sign saying 'Diversion' but being able to look around expecting to see the next diversion route sign either down this turning or up ahead by another turning, and using that extra information to decide what to do. Not just identifying an erratically moving vehicle when you see it, but hearing a siren and seeing a flash of blue in the mirror and thinking ahead that an ambulance is coming and then looking for places to pull over to let it past and expecting the cars around you might move like that as well. Not just seeing the car in front slowing down, but seeing the driver inside it move and understanding that they ware waving you past because they are double-parking to drop someone off or pick someone up instead of slowing down because of traffic. And countless other situations. Humans have good reaction time when it comes to touching something hot and pulling our hands away before we understand and are aware of what happened. Sensor equipped cars have good reaction time when it comes to ultrasound sensing a thing up ahead and applying the brakes without understanding what's happening. Humans have bad reaction times when driving because we can't feel the thing in the road, it has to go through our slower higher level thinking to understand what's happening before we can choose to respond. Self-driving cars, then, are either the pretense that you can put a human level AI on top of the car's unconscious reactions, without compromising the reaction time, to get a superhuman level driver. And that's not something you can do because human level AI doesn't exist. Or they are the unfounded claim that you can drive through humanspace without human understanding, which is about as convincing as saying you can send a machine to the butcher, baker and candlestick maker to do your shopping without it having any AI. As soon as anything goes off-plan the robot is stuck. And you get into "well, we'll hard code a workaround for this situation and simply enumerate everything which could go wrong in a decision tree". Shop door closed with a sign saying "please use other door"? Hard code that, OK now are we good? Shop door closed with a sign saying "please ring bell for attention"? OK, hard-code that, now are we good? Shop door propped open with a mop and bucket and a sign saying "caution, wet floor"? OK, hard-code that, now are we good? Butcher says "sorry we have no liver but we're expecting a delivery in 5 minutes are you OK to wait?"? OK, hard-code that, now do we have AI? And then you get to Amazon which controls the warehouse layout, temperature, environment, shelving, can put tracks in the floor, put all items into regular sized boxes tagged with machine readable labels, which is more analogous to trains and trams on rails, and still Amazon use humans to pick and pack things.
- jocker12 4y ago
  This is not news. He is saying that for at least two years now - https://reason.com/video/2020/02/24/george-hotz-fully-self-driving-cars-are-a-scam-and-silicon-valley-needs-to-die/ https://reason.com/video/2020/02/24/george-hotz-fully-self-d...
terafo 4y ago
That's what he is talking about. There are different standards for safety for experimental planes and commercial jets. And he is much better in building former than latter.
breck 4y ago
Please read the details of Howard Hughes's test flights (also Winston Churchill) and realize that perhaps it's people like that who are required to make anything work. If planes were designed by safety committees we would have never figured out how to make them light enough to fly.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  No one is saying people cannot experiment. We'd just not rather be the unsuspecting rats in Tesla's try-not-to-kill-too-many-pedestrians beta.
  - tim333 4y ago
    Well personally I'd rather not be any of the 1.35 million annual road deaths. It wouldn't make a huge difference to me if I was one of the 0.000001% got by a Tesla or one of the other ones. If you want to help US pedestrians you'd be much better going after SUVs and pickups https://www.webmd.com/first-aid/news/20220318/turning-pickups-suvs-pedestrians-study https://www.webmd.com/first-aid/news/20220318/turning-pickup...
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      We can do both. And based on interventions per mile driven I'd say Tesla's are a whole new level of danger.
generalizations 4y ago
> It is absolutely the wrong attitude for self-driving cars or anything that is safety critical. With your attitude, we would never have allowed cars in the first place.
turminal 4y ago
Compiler development is (often indirectly) safety critical too.
wiseowise 4y ago
You do understand that this is joke, right?

That kind of attitude is great for editor or compiler or game development. It is absolutely the wrong attitude for self-driving cars or anything that is safety critical.

1980phipsi 4y ago

To be fair, he was recently in the news saying self-driving cars are a scam. https://cleantechnica.com/2022/10/09/george-hotz-autonomous-cars-are-a-scam-connected-cars-may-be-the-new-thing/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/10/09/george-hotz-autonomous-...

panick21_ 4y ago
Self driving car companies, not cars are the scam. And he has been saying the same thing for years.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jeffbee 4y ago
"I am a charlatan and therefore this whole industry is a scam" does not have great logic to it.
collegeburner 4y ago
"I couldn't get this working so nobody else can either". Classic gifted kid response to failure tbh.
thepasswordis 4y ago
>autonomous cars are no closer to reality today than they were 5 years ago Why do people keep printing things like this, which are objectively wrong? I have had a completely autonomous waymo come to my location, pick me up, and take me to another location. That didn't exist five years ago, it does exist now. How is this not "closer" than it was 5 years ago when it literally exists now, and didn't exist then?
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  I think it’s the hard parts are still just as hard.
- Barrin92 4y ago
  because that's like arguing that because you can now climb your way up a tree which you couldn't do five years ago you're closer to climbing to the moon. Self-driving is still incredibly limited and progress is often overstated because people make headway on some tiny issue. A thing I always liked for people who think progress is rapid, this is Germany in the 1980s where Ernst Dickmann had autonmous cars drive thousands of miles: https://youtu.be/_HbVWm7wdmE https://youtu.be/_HbVWm7wdmE
  - thepasswordis 4y ago
    What? No, it would be like if somebody said "some day we will travel to the moon", and then after the Apollo missions there were articles being published that said "we are no closer to traveling to the moon than we were 5 years ago". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHdKm0kW4l0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHdKm0kW4l0 This is a video of a person riding in a fully self driving car.
    - Kbelicius 4y ago
      That is not a fully self driving car in the sense of what people think when they say a fully self driving car or are you saying that I could order that car and it will drive me to New York under any conditions that a human would drive through?
      - jodrellblank 4y ago
        I wrote the below comment, then watched the video, then deleted the comment; I say that the hard part is the human level understanding which doesn't exist. Watching the video it's notably in a clear, bright, flat, low-traffic, wide-road, few-people, few parked-cars, little going on, ideal conditions. But why hold to my position in the comment below, if that clearly is a self-driving car, just because it isn't climbing a slippery hill at dusk by people double-parked outside a nightclub with drunk people stumbling around. If it can get to useful amounts of humanless driving in real-world conditions which were not custom made for them, that has to count for something. ---- Eliezer Yudkowsky is fond of shitting on the AI developers of the 1960s for thinking they could write `APPLE` in the source code of a symbolic language and that that made them weeks away from a human intelligence which could reason about apples, and how simplistic that looks now. Like YouTube auto-transcribed subtitles are useful but they are obviously transcribing sounds without understanding, they lack understanding of where the context indicates that a spoken thing should be a name, or they will transcribe the same word two different ways in two different sentences with no understanding that it was the same object as before being referred to again, or where a sound is unclear I can fill in what was intended but the auto transcriber can't, or I can see from lip movement that the transcription was wrong, the audio processor can't integrate multiple inputs in that way, and they will transcribe sentences which are grammatically correct but human background knowledge of the world tells you it makes no sense. Similar with self driving cars, it's pretty clear from the outside that you can't have a car which can reason about the state of a city, its roads, the things in the roads, the environmental conditions, without having a large amount of interconnected human level background understanding of the world and the things in it. e.g. not just seeing a shape and identifying it as a cyclist, but knowing that you passed a cyclist a few seconds ago and now you are slowing down for traffic lights the cyclist will be coming back alongside you momentarily. Not just identifying a parked car, but seeing a car stop moving and turn its lights off as it parks implies the doors are about to open. Not just seeing lane markers in the road, but seeing no lane markers and being able to complete the pattern of where the lane markers should be because you understand how humans design roads. Not just seeing rain and slowing down, but the hinkiness feeling of "these conditions are dangerous" from the way other cars are driving, the road conditions, and slowing down in advance of anything objectively happening because you predict what could happen. Not just seeing a sign saying 'Diversion' but being able to look around expecting to see the next diversion route sign either down this turning or up ahead by another turning, and using that extra information to decide what to do. Not just identifying an erratically moving vehicle when you see it, but hearing a siren and seeing a flash of blue in the mirror and thinking ahead that an ambulance is coming and then looking for places to pull over to let it past and expecting the cars around you might move like that as well. Not just seeing the car in front slowing down, but seeing the driver inside it move and understanding that they ware waving you past because they are double-parking to drop someone off or pick someone up instead of slowing down because of traffic. And countless other situations. Humans have good reaction time when it comes to touching something hot and pulling our hands away before we understand and are aware of what happened. Sensor equipped cars have good reaction time when it comes to ultrasound sensing a thing up ahead and applying the brakes without understanding what's happening. Humans have bad reaction times when driving because we can't feel the thing in the road, it has to go through our slower higher level thinking to understand what's happening before we can choose to respond. Self-driving cars, then, are either the pretense that you can put a human level AI on top of the car's unconscious reactions, without compromising the reaction time, to get a superhuman level driver. And that's not something you can do because human level AI doesn't exist. Or they are the unfounded claim that you can drive through humanspace without human understanding, which is about as convincing as saying you can send a machine to the butcher, baker and candlestick maker to do your shopping without it having any AI. As soon as anything goes off-plan the robot is stuck. And you get into "well, we'll hard code a workaround for this situation and simply enumerate everything which could go wrong in a decision tree". Shop door closed with a sign saying "please use other door"? Hard code that, OK now are we good? Shop door closed with a sign saying "please ring bell for attention"? OK, hard-code that, now are we good? Shop door propped open with a mop and bucket and a sign saying "caution, wet floor"? OK, hard-code that, now are we good? Butcher says "sorry we have no liver but we're expecting a delivery in 5 minutes are you OK to wait?"? OK, hard-code that, now do we have AI? And then you get to Amazon which controls the warehouse layout, temperature, environment, shelving, can put tracks in the floor, put all items into regular sized boxes tagged with machine readable labels, which is more analogous to trains and trams on rails, and still Amazon use humans to pick and pack things.
jocker12 4y ago
This is not news. He is saying that for at least two years now - https://reason.com/video/2020/02/24/george-hotz-fully-self-driving-cars-are-a-scam-and-silicon-valley-needs-to-die/ https://reason.com/video/2020/02/24/george-hotz-fully-self-d...

terafo 4y ago

That's what he is talking about. There are different standards for safety for experimental planes and commercial jets. And he is much better in building former than latter.

breck 4y ago

Please read the details of Howard Hughes's test flights (also Winston Churchill) and realize that perhaps it's people like that who are required to make anything work. If planes were designed by safety committees we would have never figured out how to make them light enough to fly.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
No one is saying people cannot experiment. We'd just not rather be the unsuspecting rats in Tesla's try-not-to-kill-too-many-pedestrians beta.
- tim333 4y ago
  Well personally I'd rather not be any of the 1.35 million annual road deaths. It wouldn't make a huge difference to me if I was one of the 0.000001% got by a Tesla or one of the other ones. If you want to help US pedestrians you'd be much better going after SUVs and pickups https://www.webmd.com/first-aid/news/20220318/turning-pickups-suvs-pedestrians-study https://www.webmd.com/first-aid/news/20220318/turning-pickup...
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    We can do both. And based on interventions per mile driven I'd say Tesla's are a whole new level of danger.

generalizations 4y ago

> It is absolutely the wrong attitude for self-driving cars or anything that is safety critical. With your attitude, we would never have allowed cars in the first place.

turminal 4y ago

Compiler development is (often indirectly) safety critical too.

wiseowise 4y ago

You do understand that this is joke, right?