3 ms·

I have 0% faith the current hardware will ever run a real level 5 solution. It will require better processors, better cameras, LiDAR, more RAM, something.

by MBCook 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> have 0% faith the current hardware will ever run a real level 5 solution Me either! But that’s not fraud. It’s delusion. We don’t criminalise it because the difference between genius and crazy is often only apparent ex post facto.
- MBCook 4y ago
  Selling a product that does X that neither currently does X nor can in the future do X seems like fraud to me.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > nor can in the future do X We don’t know this. That’s the point.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      Generally, when you don't know that a product definitely can do something, you don't sell it saying that it has the "capability" to do it. That's fraud.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > when you don't know that a product definitely can do something, you don't sell it saying that it has the "capability" to do it. That's fraud. Capability is defined as "the facility or potential for an indicated use or deployment" [1]. There are other definitions. But selling capability based on future potential is not fraudulent, unless you say the capability is present. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capability https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capability emphasis mine
        pclmulqdq 4y ago
        I think you're reading the word "potential" incorrectly for the context. Dictionaries are tricky things to read, because they tend to incorrectly communicate nuances. The capability to do something means that it can be done, not that it might be able to be done. Otherwise, my Honda has the capability to fly.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > my Honda has the capability to fly No, because there is no reasonable potential for it to generate enough thrust to be a lifting body. We understand aerodynamics enough to say that. We don’t understand self-driving cars enough to rule out the sensors on today’s Teslas being adequate, given the right software. Saying someone is capable of climbing a mountain, conditioned on training, isn’t a lie. The caveat is important. I think Tesla has played fast and loose with its caveats in a way that produces civil liability. But it doesn’t appear to be wilfully defrauding its customers, who are more or less happy with their cars.
        pclmulqdq 4y ago
        We do understand flight well enough that I can confidently tell you that given an appropriately sized and shaped ramp, my Honda can fly. It doesn't even need a software upgrade, the car as it is today can do it! A Tesla today has no self-driving capability without software that doesn't exist. That means it doesn't have self-driving capability. It doesn't mean that someone "played fast and loose with caveats."
- JohnFen 4y ago
  I don't see any reason to think that Musk is either genius or crazy.
- yellow_postit 4y ago
  Is the key difference that no one can prove the current hardware will be unable to reach a level 5 solution? Taken to the (more) absurd we wouldn’t have this issue if the claim was the cars could fly, be boats, or time travel. People wouldn’t buy the “capability” either. This is a fascinating murky area and seems there’s no market solution beyond caveat emptor
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > a fascinating murky area and seems there’s no market solution beyond caveat emptor I think so. It's interesting to discuss and think about, because the grey area is incredibly complex. (Not that we get too far into it on these kinds of forums.)
- stefan_ 4y ago
  I don't understand, up top you said it's just the "capability". So if it isn't even that, what's left? Don't they already have a new, more powerful HW design for 2023 that is incompatible with the fittings for the old one?

I have 0% faith the current hardware will ever run a real level 5 solution. It will require better processors, better cameras, LiDAR, more RAM, something.

by MBCook 4y ago

I have 0% faith the current hardware will ever run a real level 5 solution. It will require better processors, better cameras, LiDAR, more RAM, something.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> have 0% faith the current hardware will ever run a real level 5 solution Me either! But that’s not fraud. It’s delusion. We don’t criminalise it because the difference between genius and crazy is often only apparent ex post facto.

MBCook 4y ago
Selling a product that does X that neither currently does X nor can in the future do X seems like fraud to me.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > nor can in the future do X We don’t know this. That’s the point.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    Generally, when you don't know that a product definitely can do something, you don't sell it saying that it has the "capability" to do it. That's fraud.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > when you don't know that a product definitely can do something, you don't sell it saying that it has the "capability" to do it. That's fraud. Capability is defined as "the facility or potential for an indicated use or deployment" [1]. There are other definitions. But selling capability based on future potential is not fraudulent, unless you say the capability is present. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capability https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capability emphasis mine
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        I think you're reading the word "potential" incorrectly for the context. Dictionaries are tricky things to read, because they tend to incorrectly communicate nuances. The capability to do something means that it can be done, not that it might be able to be done. Otherwise, my Honda has the capability to fly.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > my Honda has the capability to fly No, because there is no reasonable potential for it to generate enough thrust to be a lifting body. We understand aerodynamics enough to say that. We don’t understand self-driving cars enough to rule out the sensors on today’s Teslas being adequate, given the right software. Saying someone is capable of climbing a mountain, conditioned on training, isn’t a lie. The caveat is important. I think Tesla has played fast and loose with its caveats in a way that produces civil liability. But it doesn’t appear to be wilfully defrauding its customers, who are more or less happy with their cars.
        pclmulqdq 4y ago
        We do understand flight well enough that I can confidently tell you that given an appropriately sized and shaped ramp, my Honda can fly. It doesn't even need a software upgrade, the car as it is today can do it! A Tesla today has no self-driving capability without software that doesn't exist. That means it doesn't have self-driving capability. It doesn't mean that someone "played fast and loose with caveats."
JohnFen 4y ago
I don't see any reason to think that Musk is either genius or crazy.
yellow_postit 4y ago
Is the key difference that no one can prove the current hardware will be unable to reach a level 5 solution? Taken to the (more) absurd we wouldn’t have this issue if the claim was the cars could fly, be boats, or time travel. People wouldn’t buy the “capability” either. This is a fascinating murky area and seems there’s no market solution beyond caveat emptor
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > a fascinating murky area and seems there’s no market solution beyond caveat emptor I think so. It's interesting to discuss and think about, because the grey area is incredibly complex. (Not that we get too far into it on these kinds of forums.)
stefan_ 4y ago
I don't understand, up top you said it's just the "capability". So if it isn't even that, what's left? Don't they already have a new, more powerful HW design for 2023 that is incompatible with the fittings for the old one?