4 ms·

Are you suggesting that AI driving is impossible? What's so special about a human brain "reasoning" while driving that AI can't do it?

baz00 3y ago
The burden of proof is that something is possible not that it is not impossible. There is no evidence to suggest at this point that it is cost effective, safe or possible.
- wilg 3y ago
  We know driving is possible. So, check. Cost effective, I don't know what this means in this context. Development costs, rider costs? I don't see why this matters. Safety is easy to measure. Just measure crash rates. If your concern is can we engineer a self-driving car with acceptable safety performance, there is only one way to figure that out and it's to try to build one. You're not going to somehow prove it out on paper before trying it.
justinclift 3y ago
> Are you suggesting that AI driving is impossible? Seems like it'll be impossible for Tesla. It's less clear for others though, as some of them (Mercedes?) seem to be taking a more responsible development approach.
- wilg 3y ago
  Looking at Mercedes is foolish IMO. There's no reason to think they have any expertise in this domain. They have some press releases but very little technology to show for themselves. Cruise and Waymo are the other major players here.
  - Tepix 3y ago
    Are you aware that Mercedes has L3 (in limited circumstances) rolled out already?
    - wilg 3y ago
      Yes, far as I can tell, it's mostly a marketing gimmick. I think it works below 40mph in stop-and-go traffic on Nevada freeways, and doesn't do any navigation and just stays in its lane. They can put out a press release about "L3" all they want, but there's nothing to suggest this is more than an off-the-shelf ADAS/LKAS with some additional driver monitoring. This is not the type of technology or strategy you see anyone serious about self-driving working on.
      - presto8 3y ago
        Mercedes is taking legal liability for all actions of the car while it is in L3 autonomous mode, which Mercedes calls "Drive Pilot." That feels like more than a marketing gimmick, especially since no other automakers have assumed liability like this (that I know of). I am in stop-and-go traffic on the highway all the time during rush hour, it would still be beneficial to just read a book or work on my laptop while the car drives, even in that limited circumstance.
        wilg 3y ago
        Doesn’t appear to be clearly true. https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/mercedes-drive-pilot-automated-system-poses-legal-questions https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/mercedes-drive-pilo... And taking legal liability in very narrow (essentially useless) circumstances is exactly why it’s a marketing thing. It’s to make it seem like they have an advanced system when there is no evidence of them having it or having any realistic path forward.
        justinclift 3y ago
        Non-paywalled link for that: https://archive.li/VnOk5 https://archive.li/VnOk5 After reading that, it's hard to tell what Mercedes is doing. :/ Hopefully it's not just marketing bullshit, but I guess we'll all only find out over time.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    > There's no reason to think they have any expertise in this domain. If they're taking a measured approach, and it's working, then it seems like they've either bought in the expertise or managed to develop it. :)
    - wilg 3y ago
      As I said in another reply, there's nothing to suggest they have much other than off-the-shelf parts and some clever marketing.
ForestCritter 3y ago
deer
Zigurd 3y ago
At Elon's insistence, Tesla is pursuing camera-only autonomy. That's what might not be possible. If that's not a viable approach, Tesla has also given up the advantage of 3D LIDAR mapping the environment in which their cars operate and will have to start over, years behind other AV technology.

baz00 3y ago

The burden of proof is that something is possible not that it is not impossible. There is no evidence to suggest at this point that it is cost effective, safe or possible.

wilg 3y ago
We know driving is possible. So, check. Cost effective, I don't know what this means in this context. Development costs, rider costs? I don't see why this matters. Safety is easy to measure. Just measure crash rates. If your concern is can we engineer a self-driving car with acceptable safety performance, there is only one way to figure that out and it's to try to build one. You're not going to somehow prove it out on paper before trying it.

justinclift 3y ago

> Are you suggesting that AI driving is impossible? Seems like it'll be impossible for Tesla. It's less clear for others though, as some of them (Mercedes?) seem to be taking a more responsible development approach.

wilg 3y ago
Looking at Mercedes is foolish IMO. There's no reason to think they have any expertise in this domain. They have some press releases but very little technology to show for themselves. Cruise and Waymo are the other major players here.
- Tepix 3y ago
  Are you aware that Mercedes has L3 (in limited circumstances) rolled out already?
  - wilg 3y ago
    Yes, far as I can tell, it's mostly a marketing gimmick. I think it works below 40mph in stop-and-go traffic on Nevada freeways, and doesn't do any navigation and just stays in its lane. They can put out a press release about "L3" all they want, but there's nothing to suggest this is more than an off-the-shelf ADAS/LKAS with some additional driver monitoring. This is not the type of technology or strategy you see anyone serious about self-driving working on.
    - presto8 3y ago
      Mercedes is taking legal liability for all actions of the car while it is in L3 autonomous mode, which Mercedes calls "Drive Pilot." That feels like more than a marketing gimmick, especially since no other automakers have assumed liability like this (that I know of). I am in stop-and-go traffic on the highway all the time during rush hour, it would still be beneficial to just read a book or work on my laptop while the car drives, even in that limited circumstance.
      - wilg 3y ago
        Doesn’t appear to be clearly true. https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/mercedes-drive-pilot-automated-system-poses-legal-questions https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/mercedes-drive-pilo... And taking legal liability in very narrow (essentially useless) circumstances is exactly why it’s a marketing thing. It’s to make it seem like they have an advanced system when there is no evidence of them having it or having any realistic path forward.
        justinclift 3y ago
        Non-paywalled link for that: https://archive.li/VnOk5 https://archive.li/VnOk5 After reading that, it's hard to tell what Mercedes is doing. :/ Hopefully it's not just marketing bullshit, but I guess we'll all only find out over time.
- justinclift 3y ago
  > There's no reason to think they have any expertise in this domain. If they're taking a measured approach, and it's working, then it seems like they've either bought in the expertise or managed to develop it. :)
  - wilg 3y ago
    As I said in another reply, there's nothing to suggest they have much other than off-the-shelf parts and some clever marketing.

ForestCritter 3y ago

deer

Zigurd 3y ago

At Elon's insistence, Tesla is pursuing camera-only autonomy. That's what might not be possible. If that's not a viable approach, Tesla has also given up the advantage of 3D LIDAR mapping the environment in which their cars operate and will have to start over, years behind other AV technology.