3 ms·
> While an error rate of 1-in-1,000 seems low, [...], on a task that requires successful execution of thousands of steps in a row, such a system results in inev
by amelius 1y ago
> While an error rate of 1-in-1,000 seems low, [...], on a task that requires successful execution of thousands of steps in a row, such a system results in inevitable failure.
This is also why (edit: non-LIDAR) FSD cars are an illusion.
- JimDabell 1y agoWaymo has driven a hundred million miles and is far safer than human drivers.
- amelius 1y agoYes because they use non-AI techniques (LIDAR) to prevent them from bumping into things. I should have said non-LIDAR in my comment, yes.
- jchw 1y agoI think you're still in the edit window, FYI. (At least for a few more minutes.)
- JimDabell 1y agoLIDAR doesn’t stop them bumping into anything. LIDAR is a sensor, it doesn’t recognise anything or make decisions about steering, acceleration, or braking.
- amelius 1y agoYou need more than the sensor, obviously. The point is that you don't need any AI to make a system this way that is substantially safer than a system based only on camera feeds and AI.
- JimDabell 1y agoDo you think Waymo using LIDAR means that Waymo aren’t using AI? Waymo are using AI.
- amelius 1y agoThat's not what I'm saying at all. Waymo uses LIDAR to ensure safety. They use AI for most of the rest.
- JimDabell 1y ago> > While an error rate of 1-in-1,000 seems low, [...], on a task that requires successful execution of thousands of steps in a row, such a system results in inevitable failure. > This is also why (edit: non-LIDAR) FSD cars are an illusion. In this scenario, Waymo’s AI is executing thousands of steps in a row. The fact that it uses LIDAR for sensing doesn’t change that. It’s still AI driving you around no matter what its eyes are made of. Waymo is a counterexample to the point you were making and their use of LIDAR doesn’t change that.
- amelius 1y agoNo because safety is guaranteed by the LIDAR and navigation is done by GPS+classical algorithms. Mistakes made by the AI can be overcome by those two non-AI approaches + reiterating the AI-based steps.
- ACCount37 1y agoFSD isn't, and never was, a sensor problem. It's an AI problem. Always was. Always will be. Humans drive around with two mid-tier cameras on a pivot mount. Which means that any sufficiently advanced AI can do the same. When a FSD car gets into an avoidable collision, you dump the blackbox data, and what do you see? You see that the cameras had it. All the information the car needed to avoid a collision was right there in the visual stream. The car had every bit of information it needed to make the right call, and didn't make the right call. You can acknowledge that, and focus on building better AIs. Or you can neglect AI altogether, and have a car with 6 LIDARs drag a pedestrian, because it had all the sensor coverage but zero object permanence.
- amelius 1y ago> Humans drive around with two mid-tier cameras on a pivot mount. Which means that any sufficiently advanced AI can do the same. Yes, if we can get their error rate below 0.000001%. Until we get there, sensors + old school computer-vision provide safety.
- ACCount37 1y agoWhat makes you think that "sensors + old school computer-vision" gives you an error rate better than "completely fucked"?
- amelius 1y agoIn simple terms, the LIDAR sensor will allow you to do "If object at X, don't go to X". But obviously, you need more than that. Old school Kalman filters for object tracking etc.
- ACCount37 1y agoRaw dog LIDAR and "old school kalman filters" don't give you anywhere near good enough performance. Want to know how poor performance looks like in practice? Like Tesla phantom braking but ten times worse. And if you dial it down to avoid false positives, then it stops exerting any control over AI, and you're back to getting your AI to work well.