3 ms·

Visual detection only doesn’t work and the man that forced Tesla to use it is now in control of government “efficiency”. This decade’s very dark humor just kee

Visual detection only doesn’t work and the man that forced Tesla to use it is now in control of government “efficiency”. This decade’s very dark humor just keeps getting worse.

ReptileMan 2y ago
We have more than 100 years of proof that visual detection works quite well. The problem is that we don't have certification process before a tech is deployed on the streets - your AV must pass this and this tests before you are allowed to use it. We don't care how you got there lidar, gps/astrology, camera/ai are all ok as long as you pass
- whiplash451 2y ago
  You’re confusing vision (the sensor) with perception (the compute that goes with it). We have zero evidence that vision-based computers are safe enough to drive.
- Finnucane 2y ago
  each year there are millions of car accidents and tens of thousands of fatalities. Are we really sure visual detection works that great?
  - fallingknife 2y ago
    We're talking engineering here. Great isn't the standard. The standard is good enough and within budget.
  - Rohansi 2y ago
    Vision isn't the problem for the vast majority of those accidents. There are a lot of really bad drivers out there.
- marcusb 2y ago
  I think we have a lot of proof that human visual detection works well enough to “only” kill around 40k people/year in the US from traffic accidents. I have had a Tesla for several years now. The visual object detection display very frequently misidentifies objects. Just the other day, it detected my garage (which the car was parked next to) as a semi truck. I have never, with my wildly imperfect human vision, mistaken a building for a semi truck. More to the point of the OP, sometimes objects show up and disappear repeatedly. As I’ve said in other comments, I think EVs and autonomous driving will eventually improve the lot of humanity greatly, but there’s a lot to be desired in the current tech and not any point in trying to pretend it is better than it really is.
  - vachina 2y ago
    You may have briefly misidentified a traffic light for a pedestrian light, but you quickly recovered and stopped for the light. Transient errors happen all the time, but somehow you trust yourself more to keep driving.
    - marcusb 2y ago
      Sure. I probably have done something like that. What I’ve not done is seen a motocyclist in front of me, then decided it wasn’t really there, and then hit said motorcyclist.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hkpack 2y ago
  > We have more than 100 years of proof What are you talking about specifically?
  - artursapek 2y ago
    Humans driving cars, obviously.
  - idlephysicist 2y ago
    I think they mean that because people have been driving automobiles for over 100 years and that proves (somehow) that visual detection works for identifying hazards on the road. But they seem to be conflating human vision with computer vision.
- outer_web 2y ago
  If half of the population had a lidar eye would your opinion change?
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > We have more than 100 years of proof that visual detection works quite well. No, we don't. We have evidence that visual detection (well, the whole human set of senses, but for driving most of the reliance is on visual detection), combined with human level intelligence, is sufficient for the human-level driving which is the absolute minimum bar for fully automated driving. Which is very different than “visual detection works quite well”.
  - ReptileMan 2y ago
    Why are you disagreeing with me while proving my point? The signal we get is enough. It is the processing that is still lacking. And that is why there should be benchmarks to be passed. Cameras and microphones do provide enough information for successful driving.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > Why are you disagreeing with me while proving my point? I'm not sure what your point is, but what you actually said overstates the case for visual detection. > The signal we get is enough. Sure, we know that with processing far beyond what we currently can replicate, it can at least just meet the minimum bar. > And that is why there should be benchmarks to be passed Is it? I would think there should be proof and validation no matter which pieces were demonstrated adequate and which have not yet been. But the thing is that we don't even know enough to make a set of benchmarks that can be tested that provide confidence, and we maybe won't until we've had the several systems that demonstrate that they work well enough in real conditions from which to generalize a minimum set of standards that can be verified prior to getting into real conditions. So we do supervised testing in progressively-less-limited real world conditions of each system until we get to that point.
- drowsspa 2y ago
  Does Tesla accept liability for any accidents while FSD is enabled?
sergiotapia 2y ago
Been driving my new model Y with FSD since Monday and it's really cool works great. Just drove from home to a restaurant without touching the steering wheel. It does work I'm livin it.
- sergiotapia 2y ago
  and it drove me back just now, flawlessly. i must be living in an alternate reality to these "journalists". they are so transparent about why they write this stuff hahaha
  - Mistletoe 2y ago
    No one is saying it won't work in great conditions. It's all the bad conditions and at all times that is the issue.

Visual detection only doesn’t work and the man that forced Tesla to use it is now in control of government “efficiency”. This decade’s very dark humor just keeps getting worse.

ReptileMan 2y ago

We have more than 100 years of proof that visual detection works quite well. The problem is that we don't have certification process before a tech is deployed on the streets - your AV must pass this and this tests before you are allowed to use it. We don't care how you got there lidar, gps/astrology, camera/ai are all ok as long as you pass

whiplash451 2y ago
You’re confusing vision (the sensor) with perception (the compute that goes with it). We have zero evidence that vision-based computers are safe enough to drive.
Finnucane 2y ago
each year there are millions of car accidents and tens of thousands of fatalities. Are we really sure visual detection works that great?
- fallingknife 2y ago
  We're talking engineering here. Great isn't the standard. The standard is good enough and within budget.
- Rohansi 2y ago
  Vision isn't the problem for the vast majority of those accidents. There are a lot of really bad drivers out there.
marcusb 2y ago
I think we have a lot of proof that human visual detection works well enough to “only” kill around 40k people/year in the US from traffic accidents. I have had a Tesla for several years now. The visual object detection display very frequently misidentifies objects. Just the other day, it detected my garage (which the car was parked next to) as a semi truck. I have never, with my wildly imperfect human vision, mistaken a building for a semi truck. More to the point of the OP, sometimes objects show up and disappear repeatedly. As I’ve said in other comments, I think EVs and autonomous driving will eventually improve the lot of humanity greatly, but there’s a lot to be desired in the current tech and not any point in trying to pretend it is better than it really is.
- vachina 2y ago
  You may have briefly misidentified a traffic light for a pedestrian light, but you quickly recovered and stopped for the light. Transient errors happen all the time, but somehow you trust yourself more to keep driving.
  - marcusb 2y ago
    Sure. I probably have done something like that. What I’ve not done is seen a motocyclist in front of me, then decided it wasn’t really there, and then hit said motorcyclist.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hkpack 2y ago
> We have more than 100 years of proof What are you talking about specifically?
- artursapek 2y ago
  Humans driving cars, obviously.
- idlephysicist 2y ago
  I think they mean that because people have been driving automobiles for over 100 years and that proves (somehow) that visual detection works for identifying hazards on the road. But they seem to be conflating human vision with computer vision.
outer_web 2y ago
If half of the population had a lidar eye would your opinion change?
dragonwriter 2y ago
> We have more than 100 years of proof that visual detection works quite well. No, we don't. We have evidence that visual detection (well, the whole human set of senses, but for driving most of the reliance is on visual detection), combined with human level intelligence, is sufficient for the human-level driving which is the absolute minimum bar for fully automated driving. Which is very different than “visual detection works quite well”.
- ReptileMan 2y ago
  Why are you disagreeing with me while proving my point? The signal we get is enough. It is the processing that is still lacking. And that is why there should be benchmarks to be passed. Cameras and microphones do provide enough information for successful driving.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > Why are you disagreeing with me while proving my point? I'm not sure what your point is, but what you actually said overstates the case for visual detection. > The signal we get is enough. Sure, we know that with processing far beyond what we currently can replicate, it can at least just meet the minimum bar. > And that is why there should be benchmarks to be passed Is it? I would think there should be proof and validation no matter which pieces were demonstrated adequate and which have not yet been. But the thing is that we don't even know enough to make a set of benchmarks that can be tested that provide confidence, and we maybe won't until we've had the several systems that demonstrate that they work well enough in real conditions from which to generalize a minimum set of standards that can be verified prior to getting into real conditions. So we do supervised testing in progressively-less-limited real world conditions of each system until we get to that point.
drowsspa 2y ago
Does Tesla accept liability for any accidents while FSD is enabled?

sergiotapia 2y ago

Been driving my new model Y with FSD since Monday and it's really cool works great. Just drove from home to a restaurant without touching the steering wheel. It does work I'm livin it.

sergiotapia 2y ago
and it drove me back just now, flawlessly. i must be living in an alternate reality to these "journalists". they are so transparent about why they write this stuff hahaha
- Mistletoe 2y ago
  No one is saying it won't work in great conditions. It's all the bad conditions and at all times that is the issue.