3 ms·

He is talking about the long technical talk at CVPR. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bOwQdCJrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bOwQdCJrc For example look

He is talking about the long technical talk at CVPR. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bOwQdCJrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bOwQdCJrc For example look at this section: https://youtu.be/g6bOwQdCJrc?t=1370 https://youtu.be/g6bOwQdCJrc?t=1370 Also if you look into it you will find Google's self-driving car project ran into similar issues. They upgraded the radar in response to the issues rather than removing it, but there are actual issues. Vision only was better than radar plus vision in their stack. For real world situations that frequently come up in driving radar wasn't worth it. The theoretical accuracy of the sensor fusion didn't happen in practice because in practice you needed to have vision tell you when sensor fusion wasn't going to be accurate. It isn't naive sensor fusion as in toy math models of sensor fusion. So when there was a disagreement you needed to go with vision. Yet vision was already able to predict both the failure of and the actual result of radar. In theory, you could just have done the more complicated sensor fusion. In practice, the relative advantage of improving other parts of the vision stack far exceeded improving the sensor fusion. Over time one would expect the relative advantage to change as other improvements were made such that this was no longer true. That doesn't mean the time at the decision wasn't correct, it just means people who evaluate it with future changes already in place are suffering from hindsight bias/committing an anachronistic fallacy.

gonehome 4y ago
Yep - this is the one I was talking about, thanks for linking!
ryanwaggoner 4y ago
Yeah, Google actually made the right call. Thinking that Tesla made a stupid and dangerous call isn't "hindsight bias", their vision-only approach has always been inferior and reckless.
- JoshCole 4y ago
  The practical impact of the change you call stupid and reckless was that the car stopped slamming its brakes when going under underpasses. So when it comes down to it what you are claiming is that it is stupid and reckless to decide not to slam on the brakes. Look - I get it. I too thought radar sensor fusion would improve the results. Guess who else thought this? The people you consider stupid and reckless thought this. Do you know why they changed their mind? According to you, because they are stupid and reckless. I can't stress this enough: you are telling yourself inaccurate stories about what happened. If you just /look/ at the /measured impact/ instead of /wrongly guessing what Karpathy thought/ and /wrongly guessing what Karpathy has said/ and /wrongly guessing what other people were referencing when they talked about what Karpathy said/ then you would realize this.
  - ryanwaggoner 3y ago
    Haha, it’s funny that you circled back a day later to leave another comment lambasting me. It’s so naive to just take Tesla’s word for all of this, and to believe that they took this approach because they decided it was the safest and most effective. Meanwhile, other credible teams out there have not gone with vision-only, and as a result their systems aren’t a pile of dangerous dogshit that are killing customers. But Tesla is incredibly arrogant and reckless, and they just keep doubling down. Vision-only is the wrong choice, it won’t get us to L4, and that should have been pretty easy to see from the start.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - JoshCole 3y ago
      Here is my point through the filter of ChatGPT asked to state it nicely. I'm sorry if it comes off as a rude. If you propose a theory that suggests overconfident individuals are taking reckless actions, compromising safety, it's crucial to treat that theory as a hypothesis and extrapolate conjectures based on it. For instance, if your theory revolves around adopting vision-only technology leading to increased accidents, this should be reflected in the accident rates per mile. However, current data indicates a decrease in accidents per mile, which, while not conclusively disproving your theory, serves as strong evidence against it. Dismissing such reasoning by claiming naivety on the part of Tesla supporters is unconvincing. As a Tesla owner, I have experienced the car's safety features firsthand. For example, I have noticed the vehicle slows down when passing under an underpass, and this improved after the update, making it safer. Furthermore, it's essential to consider the full range of evidence available, not just a specific instance. One such piece of evidence is Karpathy's CVPR talk, which demonstrates accuracy improvements through video evidence. It's challenging for your argument when you accept Karpathy's comments only when they align with your intuition but dismiss them when they contradict it, especially when the latter is supported by video and metrics and the former alignment with intuition was a misunderstanding of Karpathy on your part. Additionally, you're overlooking evidence from sources not affiliated with Tesla. For instance, safety assessments by NHTSA and regulatory agencies in other countries consistently rank Tesla as one of the safest cars. While the electric design contributes to this, it remains an issue for your argument, as Tesla's top safety rankings are confirmed by multiple independent bodies. When theorizing about reckless overconfidence, receiving accolades for safety doesn't support the idea that these individuals are taking actions that endanger others.
- JoshCole 4y ago
  It is hindsight bias. You are explaining the observed safety record of Tesla being on top for safety by appealing to them being inferior and reckless. You are explaining Tesla causing a greater reduction in accident death than Waymo by them being more inferior and reckless than Waymo. You are not explaining the evidence with your theory. Your theory doesn't even reflect reality. Google invested in Tesla and in Waymo. Google did both things. Google didn't make the right call. They made both calls.

gonehome 4y ago

Yep - this is the one I was talking about, thanks for linking!

ryanwaggoner 4y ago

Yeah, Google actually made the right call. Thinking that Tesla made a stupid and dangerous call isn't "hindsight bias", their vision-only approach has always been inferior and reckless.

JoshCole 4y ago
The practical impact of the change you call stupid and reckless was that the car stopped slamming its brakes when going under underpasses. So when it comes down to it what you are claiming is that it is stupid and reckless to decide not to slam on the brakes. Look - I get it. I too thought radar sensor fusion would improve the results. Guess who else thought this? The people you consider stupid and reckless thought this. Do you know why they changed their mind? According to you, because they are stupid and reckless. I can't stress this enough: you are telling yourself inaccurate stories about what happened. If you just /look/ at the /measured impact/ instead of /wrongly guessing what Karpathy thought/ and /wrongly guessing what Karpathy has said/ and /wrongly guessing what other people were referencing when they talked about what Karpathy said/ then you would realize this.
- ryanwaggoner 3y ago
  Haha, it’s funny that you circled back a day later to leave another comment lambasting me. It’s so naive to just take Tesla’s word for all of this, and to believe that they took this approach because they decided it was the safest and most effective. Meanwhile, other credible teams out there have not gone with vision-only, and as a result their systems aren’t a pile of dangerous dogshit that are killing customers. But Tesla is incredibly arrogant and reckless, and they just keep doubling down. Vision-only is the wrong choice, it won’t get us to L4, and that should have been pretty easy to see from the start.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - JoshCole 3y ago
    Here is my point through the filter of ChatGPT asked to state it nicely. I'm sorry if it comes off as a rude. If you propose a theory that suggests overconfident individuals are taking reckless actions, compromising safety, it's crucial to treat that theory as a hypothesis and extrapolate conjectures based on it. For instance, if your theory revolves around adopting vision-only technology leading to increased accidents, this should be reflected in the accident rates per mile. However, current data indicates a decrease in accidents per mile, which, while not conclusively disproving your theory, serves as strong evidence against it. Dismissing such reasoning by claiming naivety on the part of Tesla supporters is unconvincing. As a Tesla owner, I have experienced the car's safety features firsthand. For example, I have noticed the vehicle slows down when passing under an underpass, and this improved after the update, making it safer. Furthermore, it's essential to consider the full range of evidence available, not just a specific instance. One such piece of evidence is Karpathy's CVPR talk, which demonstrates accuracy improvements through video evidence. It's challenging for your argument when you accept Karpathy's comments only when they align with your intuition but dismiss them when they contradict it, especially when the latter is supported by video and metrics and the former alignment with intuition was a misunderstanding of Karpathy on your part. Additionally, you're overlooking evidence from sources not affiliated with Tesla. For instance, safety assessments by NHTSA and regulatory agencies in other countries consistently rank Tesla as one of the safest cars. While the electric design contributes to this, it remains an issue for your argument, as Tesla's top safety rankings are confirmed by multiple independent bodies. When theorizing about reckless overconfidence, receiving accolades for safety doesn't support the idea that these individuals are taking actions that endanger others.
JoshCole 4y ago
It is hindsight bias. You are explaining the observed safety record of Tesla being on top for safety by appealing to them being inferior and reckless. You are explaining Tesla causing a greater reduction in accident death than Waymo by them being more inferior and reckless than Waymo. You are not explaining the evidence with your theory. Your theory doesn't even reflect reality. Google invested in Tesla and in Waymo. Google did both things. Google didn't make the right call. They made both calls.