3 ms·

Real FSD, where it is not necessary to have a human ready to take the controls at any time, isn't something you can just get more training data for. It's just t

by mjhay 4y ago

Real FSD, where it is not necessary to have a human ready to take the controls at any time, isn't something you can just get more training data for. It's just that current ML methods aren't up for the task. Basically, it turns out you need to have something that can think, and ML is nowhere near that.

BoorishBears 4y ago
That is what no one at all wants. Tesla seems to be taking the big ball of ML approach, and that relies on a model that can practically think, and that in turn means you're essentially waiting on AGI. Which is ridiculous. Instead you break down the problem that is driving. Throw pieces of ML at specific problems, like traffic light classifiers, but have a much more structured approach to the high level decisions that are made. The benefit of this is that you gain clear introspection into why your vehicle is making the decisions it makes, and a direct way to influence them other than "throw in more data and hope next time it makes the right decision!" The latter is how you kill people, and it's what Tesla has been doing so far. - Hint for other readers: Please read the comment if you want to write a reply to it. Literally nothing was said about people wanting a car you can just get into, but of course the first reply didn't make it 2 sentences in before jumping to completely orthogonal conclusions to anything that was even remotely implied in this comment. It just gets exhausting to have a conversation about a topic like this if you have to repeat every point 10 times over.
- danaris 4y ago
  "No one at all" wants a car where you can just get in, input the address, then ignore the wheel and what's going on outside until you get there? I think many, many people would beg to differ.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    Like I said in my edit since I was rate-limited, this is a nonsensical response to what I said. > Basically, it turns out you need to have something that can think, and ML is nowhere near that. This is what I was replying to. The comment I replied to didn't say a word about hoping into your car and inputting an address, and my comment repeatedly mentioned ML, so it's really hard to imagine you actually read either and came away with that erroneous of a conclusion.

by mjhay 4y ago

BoorishBears 4y ago

That is what no one at all wants. Tesla seems to be taking the big ball of ML approach, and that relies on a model that can practically think, and that in turn means you're essentially waiting on AGI. Which is ridiculous. Instead you break down the problem that is driving. Throw pieces of ML at specific problems, like traffic light classifiers, but have a much more structured approach to the high level decisions that are made. The benefit of this is that you gain clear introspection into why your vehicle is making the decisions it makes, and a direct way to influence them other than "throw in more data and hope next time it makes the right decision!" The latter is how you kill people, and it's what Tesla has been doing so far. - Hint for other readers: Please read the comment if you want to write a reply to it. Literally nothing was said about people wanting a car you can just get into, but of course the first reply didn't make it 2 sentences in before jumping to completely orthogonal conclusions to anything that was even remotely implied in this comment. It just gets exhausting to have a conversation about a topic like this if you have to repeat every point 10 times over.

danaris 4y ago
"No one at all" wants a car where you can just get in, input the address, then ignore the wheel and what's going on outside until you get there? I think many, many people would beg to differ.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  Like I said in my edit since I was rate-limited, this is a nonsensical response to what I said. > Basically, it turns out you need to have something that can think, and ML is nowhere near that. This is what I was replying to. The comment I replied to didn't say a word about hoping into your car and inputting an address, and my comment repeatedly mentioned ML, so it's really hard to imagine you actually read either and came away with that erroneous of a conclusion.