4 ms·

I don't know about "sentient", but yes, cars "have been driving without drivers" for decades. Those are limted demos, not actual, useful self-driving cars. Big

by ripe 4y ago

I don't know about "sentient", but yes, cars "have been driving without drivers" for decades. Those are limted demos, not actual, useful self-driving cars. Big difference! Extract from [1]: The basic navigation problem has been "solved" for decades. Back in Carnegie Mellon University in 1990, I watched a NavLab van rolling down a trail in Schenley Park behind my graduate student office. Since then, every few years we've been hearing announcements about how self-driving cars were just around the corner. But between demos and actual products lies a huge chasm. Today, not only do self-driving cars still not exist after billions of dollars and decades of investment, but the experts admit that they are at least a decade away. And no, you don't get to nit-pick what "self-driving car" means. It still means that I can get in, tell it to go to a destination that I would normally drive to, and then I can go to sleep. That's what's known in the trade as "Level 5" autonomy. Anything less than that is not the life-changing promise that attracts all this investment and press. If your car can operate only on a few roads, then it's no better than one of those people-mover trains at airports. Those are driverless, too. [1] https://www.robotsinplainenglish.com/e/2021-08-29-humanoid.html https://www.robotsinplainenglish.com/e/2021-08-29-humanoid.h...

Retric 4y ago
That article’s entire premise falls apart based on a single line you skipped over: If your car can operate only on a few roads, then it's no better than one of those people-mover trains at airports. Coverage area doesn’t somehow require intelligence and these systems operate on far more than a few roads. The same hardware and software could operate on every road in the US at which it would ‘suddenly be intelligent’ even though nothing changed. Look people always say whatever AI systems can do isn’t intelligent as soon as they can do it. Chess used to be considered a bastion of human supremacy over machines, then go, now the last gasps of self driving. In 20 years people will say self driving cars aren’t intelligent because they don’t work in North Korea, even as young slowly people stop learning how to drive the same way humanity largely forgot how to drive a horse and buggy.
- ripe 4y ago
  > Coverage area doesn't somehow require intelligence Coverage area is required for practical self-driving solutions, and today's ML based efforts are not close to producing it. If you measure intelligence in this context by the ability to drive on any roads anywhere, then humans are beating the crap out of "AI".
  - Retric 4y ago
    Waymo cars could drive on any US road, they don’t need detailed mapping efforts. Their limitation is legal not software. So, I guess by your metric they have human level intelligence. Or more likely, people will soon think self require minimal intelligence and we will go to the next bastion of human supremacy.
    - ripe 4y ago
      > Waymo cars could drive on any US road, they don’t need detailed mapping efforts. Their limitation is legal not software. Again, you’re mixing up “could drive” with actual ability to reliably take me where I want to go. Yeah, NavLab drove from Pittsburgh to San Diego in 1995. That doesn’t mean we had self-driving cars. And no, Waymo’s limitation is not just legal. Where are you getting that impression from? Sure, they don’t have permits to do other routes, but there’s a good reason for that: they cannot stand behind their product except within their geofence. I am not saying intelligence equals self driving. I am saying that even if you define it that way, we are far, far away still.
      - Retric 4y ago
        > reliably take me where I want to go. That’s got nothing to do with if the technology exists. Supersonic aircraft for example exist but you can’t book a supersonic flight NYC to LA. What you’re arguing is affordable mass market self driving cars don’t exist which is a strawman that has little to do with if self driving cars exist. > Waymo’s limitation is not just legal. Waymo is currently testing driverless cars in every single state (CA, NV, FL) it’s legal for them to test in. Clearly that does suggest the limitation to add any more states is legal.

by ripe 4y ago

Retric 4y ago

That article’s entire premise falls apart based on a single line you skipped over: If your car can operate only on a few roads, then it's no better than one of those people-mover trains at airports. Coverage area doesn’t somehow require intelligence and these systems operate on far more than a few roads. The same hardware and software could operate on every road in the US at which it would ‘suddenly be intelligent’ even though nothing changed. Look people always say whatever AI systems can do isn’t intelligent as soon as they can do it. Chess used to be considered a bastion of human supremacy over machines, then go, now the last gasps of self driving. In 20 years people will say self driving cars aren’t intelligent because they don’t work in North Korea, even as young slowly people stop learning how to drive the same way humanity largely forgot how to drive a horse and buggy.

ripe 4y ago
> Coverage area doesn't somehow require intelligence Coverage area is required for practical self-driving solutions, and today's ML based efforts are not close to producing it. If you measure intelligence in this context by the ability to drive on any roads anywhere, then humans are beating the crap out of "AI".
- Retric 4y ago
  Waymo cars could drive on any US road, they don’t need detailed mapping efforts. Their limitation is legal not software. So, I guess by your metric they have human level intelligence. Or more likely, people will soon think self require minimal intelligence and we will go to the next bastion of human supremacy.
  - ripe 4y ago
    > Waymo cars could drive on any US road, they don’t need detailed mapping efforts. Their limitation is legal not software. Again, you’re mixing up “could drive” with actual ability to reliably take me where I want to go. Yeah, NavLab drove from Pittsburgh to San Diego in 1995. That doesn’t mean we had self-driving cars. And no, Waymo’s limitation is not just legal. Where are you getting that impression from? Sure, they don’t have permits to do other routes, but there’s a good reason for that: they cannot stand behind their product except within their geofence. I am not saying intelligence equals self driving. I am saying that even if you define it that way, we are far, far away still.
    - Retric 4y ago
      > reliably take me where I want to go. That’s got nothing to do with if the technology exists. Supersonic aircraft for example exist but you can’t book a supersonic flight NYC to LA. What you’re arguing is affordable mass market self driving cars don’t exist which is a strawman that has little to do with if self driving cars exist. > Waymo’s limitation is not just legal. Waymo is currently testing driverless cars in every single state (CA, NV, FL) it’s legal for them to test in. Clearly that does suggest the limitation to add any more states is legal.