Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Musk maintains that camera-only technology is the most “human” way to approach self-driving, since people use their eyes to navigate the road.
Newsflash for you, Elon. Most people are terrible drivers. We should be striving to do better as a society, not imitate something that already sucks.
He also claimed he wanted to make self driving safer than humans. You can't do that well if the car has the same visual limitations a human has.
When Autopilot started I would hear people joke about how it couldn't drive in bad weather where people could. They seem to miss the point that when the computer begins to lose information needed to navigate, it's going to stop driving. People lose information and they keep going. One of these is safer.
Of course if Elon had thrown everything at the car to make it have information even in terrible or odd conditions, there'd be more merit in claiming those cars are safer than humans. But between genius brain (however much there is) and narcissist, the latter won out in doing it his way because others were doing it the obvious way.
The safest roads would be fully automated and tapped into each other. We wouldn't even need lights at intersections. A hybrid mix of human/computer traffic is always going to be dangerous.
They seem to miss the point that when the computer begins to lose information needed to navigate, it’s going to stop driving.
There's also the point that, while AI has gotten quite far, the human brain is still fairly superior at accurately interpolating and interpreting limited information. This may have changed in the past year or two, but my impression is that humans are still far better than machines at handling new or "corrupted" information, like driving in poor visibility, or suddenly having road markings disappear, etc.
Except:
Your points illustrate why other means besides cameras should be also used, as well as why the human brain's ability to filter or even ignore things is a bonus to our driving ability. Or a detriment. People who power through bad weather or sun glare or any other obstacles that obscure them seeing well and manage to get through aren't greater than the computer driver, they're just lucky. Same can be said for all the people driving while on the phone, they aren't skilled in multitasking while moving hundreds of feet per second, they just happen to have it clear 99% of the time so think they're that good.
The main point was that computers need all the information they can get to compete with humans, but they also have the ability to get data we cannot, and it's stupid to not give them that ability because of some desire to simulate the full (read that as limited) human experience. Humans deal with less info all the time, but that doesn't make them better.
If you make a road safe enough you end up with trains.
Indeed. We might have gone that way. Lots of larger cities had rail for their public transit, but the car industry got that removed for obvious reasons.
Well the computer could probably react faster than a human even with the same visual stats.
Of course computers can "compute" faster than humans. In that case, safety should not be compared with the average human. We should be expecting a lot better. It can also fail faster, and in unpredictable ways, than a human depending on the condition, which is why you can't skimp out on sensors.
Still can’t see through fog or heavy rain like humans.
Musk maintains that camera-only technology is the most “human” way to approach self-driving, since people use their eyes to navigate the road.
A few years ago I was driving on the motorway, came up on a bend in the road and was greeted by a dense freak fog bank out of nowhere. I immediately let go of the accelerator to reduce speed, at the same time my dashboard lit up like a Christmas tree and a collision alert started blaring. That gave me enough time to apply the brakes and prevent a collision with the first and only traffic jam I've ever seen there.
I see no reason to not augment our own capabilities with radar and lidar, to see what we as humans can't.
Imagine if we could “see” in those wavelengths!
…
Don’t tell Musk I said that
Now hiring for experimental brain surgery subjects! Lots of money! Sign these twelve waivers.
Very good survival rates likely!
M'profits!
This was him justifying what was a cost saving decision that became a face saving battle for him personally as everyone told him he was wrong.
If there is one thing Elon cannot stand above all others is admitting he was wrong, especially when he has spent years promising this and now he would have to retrofit at his cost Lidar to all those cars he sold as self driving ready with an expensive optional extra.
He might be able to avoid any sort of punishment from the US government as long as he stays in Trumps good books, but he will not be able to do so in Europe or similar.
waymo is already superior to tesla in self driving,waymo has been around for a few years already. teslas already too late into the game.
Do we need any more evidence that his financial success has nothing to do with intelligence?
What’s funny here is that Tesla used all of the Tesla owners driving habits to train.
One thing this means is that when it’s “socially acceptable” to go +20mph it’s going to. Not that that makes it right, but what it also means is that they didn’t sanitize their data.
So think of the worst Tesla driver you know. They helped train FSD.
Relevant:
There is a segment of highway near Budapest where cops often hang out on an overpass with a speed camera. Teslas do a light phantom brake under that overpass, like going from speed limit to 80% speed limit, because apparently the car learned that that's what it should do there.
I wouldn't have believed it's that stupid, but there is a whole discussion on local owner groups about that specific spot, and I've also seen it first hand from the passenger seat.
I mean the data IS sanitized, but not to the level that would have required certain human things to not happen.
Part of what's led to its improvement over the years is better going through the data and removing bad things or properly labeling them.
That left turn that was cut to short makes it into the first set of training as a cursory look at it seemed okay, and then they see that cars are cutting turns to short. So they go through the data again and try to find examples of it and then label them properly so it doesn't think it's okay.
But that's not a simple process, and then trying to only have certain good behaviors gets really hard because they're actually very uncommon in normal driving because the bad behavior is socially acceptable.
You can establish rules in top of the neural net output. No acceleration higher than 0.3g. No speed higher than the limit + 5 (if you know what the limit is, which teslas struggle with to this day). No running of red lights.
The thing is that you have to break the law to be an effective and even safe driver. Going way under the limit or refusing to go into the opposite lane for a moment means that you cause traffic congestion and piss people off. Waymos definitely break laws at times, I've seen it personally. And other times waymos get too "safe" and end up locked in place for 30 min at a time. The real world is a chaotic place and there's always been a discrepancy between what the laws are and how people actually drive. Lidar helps see things humans cant, but the main problem is the intelligence required, which may improve over time
The worst Telsa driver I know. Hum. That’s a tough competition.
Nothing is lamer than superior technology, eh Elon? I mean you may be a looser but at least you're not a nerd.
LiDAR is fucking awesome, actually. There's some LiDAR data on USGS website for free that shows high detail aerial geographic height-maps, I once used some to create a 3D model of a beach in California.
The only viable competition to LIDAR is structured light (see Leap Motion, there's equivalent sensors for cars), which uses an IR source with patterned light and multiple high frame rate cameras to calculate depth from the reflections. In theory light field photography with special lenses is possible too, but far more computationally heavy for real-time use IIRC
There's some safety issues with LIDAR at close range (it's a laser! it can damage cameras, etc), which is basically the main reason to not use it. But Tesla are dumb enough to try to replace them with cameras alone, and not even using proper multi-camera techniques to calculate depth
Can it really cause damage? Lidar is flown constantly, and all of googles street view had been ran with lidar. That's millions of miles of data collection and I haven't heard of any negative effects. I get that it is a laser, but is duration and distance must be big factors.
Not saying you are wrong, just looking to quanitfy the risks.
I bet it has to do with the costs to implement.
So stupid to deride a technology that a computer can process far better than video alone. Its only because he can't own and monetize it.
This is the same guy who said (paraphrased) "they do it with 4 bolts so why can't I do it with just 2?"
"LiDAR is lame!"
Not even inanimate objects are safe from his projection.
He meant expensive.
Yeah that's easily $100 her could be pocketing himself.
Boring tech works
F these companies. Hire drivers, stop spying.
Yo it's not lame. It can see stuff with no lights lol.
