4 ms·

Tesla FSD can barely handle a balmy 70 degree day, so I think you'd be disappointed. I might biased because I work on actual self-driving efforts, but nothing

Tesla FSD can barely handle a balmy 70 degree day, so I think you'd be disappointed. I might biased because I work on actual self-driving efforts, but nothing at all about Tesla has ever indicated they were serious about solving self driving in any capacity. The day that Elon proclaimed they already had the sensor suite decided was the day that they openly admitted this was fraud.

steve_adams_86 4y ago
My opinion doesn’t matter, but your last point resonates with me because this struck me as totally bizarre too. I don’t work in sensing let alone using AI with sensing data, but I’m around it a lot and my second-hand knowledge kind of set off some red flags. In remote sensing for landscape architecture, hydrography, and other similar fields (making sense of static things where no one is at risk of dying immediately, and humans review the data), the care and knowledge that goes into choosing sensor suites and processing the data properly is huge. Yet Tesla comes out saying “we’ve got some mediocre cameras and we’re gonna run with it!” Seriously? What? I get that it’s a lot of cameras but making sense of 3d space isn’t trivial at all. It’s so bizarre. Again, I know nothing, they know more than I do. The whole thing just doesn’t sit right.
- a1369209993 4y ago
  > Yet Tesla comes out saying “we’ve got some mediocre cameras and we’re gonna run with it!” To be fair, humans managed to solve self-driving with some mediocre cameras, some crappy microphones, and some unreliable force-feedback and chemical sensors, without (importantly) adding any new sensors to the hardware between start-of-project and successful full driving. So it's not a priori implausible that "use whatever sensors we have now, and just learn to compensate for any deficiencies in software", could work, since our only preexisting examples of full-self-driving (humans) essentially do that. It's just kind of stupid to hobble youself that way when you don't have to.
  - user_named 4y ago
    Humans don't have cameras.
    - a1369209993 4y ago
      Sure they do. They're those two spherical mostly-white-with-colored-circles-on-the-front things embedded in the upper half of their face. (They usually tend to call them "eyes" for some reason.) They're closed-circuit and wired pretty directly into the brain, so it's not like webcams or recording cameras where you can semi-easily get the data off somewhere else, and obviouly they're kind of wet and squishy and not-easily-electronics-compatible like most human components, but in terms of actual functionality, they're cameras.
      - steve_adams_86 4y ago
        > wired pretty directly into the brain Eyes are actually the only visible part of our brains. They aren’t wired pretty directly, they themselves are brain material.
  - steve_adams_86 4y ago
    The difference here is that our “cameras” are processed in ways we really don’t understand and at speeds we can’t seem to compete with yet (at least not with the quality of processing we have, so far). Our sight is also enhanced by our hearing or familiarity with certain driving situations and, in most cases, familiarity with certain places we drive frequently. If we isolated our eyes from our other senses I have a feeling we might actually be much worse at detecting things around us or making sense of what we’re seeing. Our senses like road feel can even help us use our eyes in anticipation of dangerous conditions like loose gravel or black ice. I know machines can do this too, but ours works so well and so quickly; it’s hard to compare with what’s on the market at the moment. Regardless, I think we agree on the final point. Such a strange way to limit a self driving car.
    - jvm___ 4y ago
- notyourwork 4y ago
  +1 I’m not in the field and my eyebrows raised when I heard that.

steve_adams_86 4y ago

My opinion doesn’t matter, but your last point resonates with me because this struck me as totally bizarre too. I don’t work in sensing let alone using AI with sensing data, but I’m around it a lot and my second-hand knowledge kind of set off some red flags. In remote sensing for landscape architecture, hydrography, and other similar fields (making sense of static things where no one is at risk of dying immediately, and humans review the data), the care and knowledge that goes into choosing sensor suites and processing the data properly is huge. Yet Tesla comes out saying “we’ve got some mediocre cameras and we’re gonna run with it!” Seriously? What? I get that it’s a lot of cameras but making sense of 3d space isn’t trivial at all. It’s so bizarre. Again, I know nothing, they know more than I do. The whole thing just doesn’t sit right.

a1369209993 4y ago
> Yet Tesla comes out saying “we’ve got some mediocre cameras and we’re gonna run with it!” To be fair, humans managed to solve self-driving with some mediocre cameras, some crappy microphones, and some unreliable force-feedback and chemical sensors, without (importantly) adding any new sensors to the hardware between start-of-project and successful full driving. So it's not a priori implausible that "use whatever sensors we have now, and just learn to compensate for any deficiencies in software", could work, since our only preexisting examples of full-self-driving (humans) essentially do that. It's just kind of stupid to hobble youself that way when you don't have to.
- user_named 4y ago
  Humans don't have cameras.
  - a1369209993 4y ago
    Sure they do. They're those two spherical mostly-white-with-colored-circles-on-the-front things embedded in the upper half of their face. (They usually tend to call them "eyes" for some reason.) They're closed-circuit and wired pretty directly into the brain, so it's not like webcams or recording cameras where you can semi-easily get the data off somewhere else, and obviouly they're kind of wet and squishy and not-easily-electronics-compatible like most human components, but in terms of actual functionality, they're cameras.
    - steve_adams_86 4y ago
      > wired pretty directly into the brain Eyes are actually the only visible part of our brains. They aren’t wired pretty directly, they themselves are brain material.
- steve_adams_86 4y ago
  The difference here is that our “cameras” are processed in ways we really don’t understand and at speeds we can’t seem to compete with yet (at least not with the quality of processing we have, so far). Our sight is also enhanced by our hearing or familiarity with certain driving situations and, in most cases, familiarity with certain places we drive frequently. If we isolated our eyes from our other senses I have a feeling we might actually be much worse at detecting things around us or making sense of what we’re seeing. Our senses like road feel can even help us use our eyes in anticipation of dangerous conditions like loose gravel or black ice. I know machines can do this too, but ours works so well and so quickly; it’s hard to compare with what’s on the market at the moment. Regardless, I think we agree on the final point. Such a strange way to limit a self driving car.
  - jvm___ 4y ago
notyourwork 4y ago
+1 I’m not in the field and my eyebrows raised when I heard that.