Re:Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving Capability' Falls Short of Its...
by swiley on Saturday September 05, 2020 @08:14PM
(#24387856)
Meh, everyone knew they couldn’t do it. The sensor array is too limited and they’re leaning too much on ML.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving Capability' Falls Short of Its...
by jayd16 on Saturday September 05, 2020 @08:32PM
(#24387943)
A human could drive the car with just the sensor input so in a very real way this is not correct. I agree that Tesla still has a long way to go though.
Re:Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving Capability' Falls Short of Its...
by swiley on Saturday September 05, 2020 @08:37PM
(#24387968)
With just the low dynamic range fixed framerate monocular camera input? I’m not sure I could. Also, everyone knows computers still aren’t as good at vision recognition as humans are.
Re:Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving Capability' Falls Short of Its...
by starfallg on Saturday September 05, 2020 @08:41PM
(#24387987)
The difference is that human can do true inference, whereas that's not really attainable even with the best in class ML models. So until we make breakthroughs in AI reasoning, we still need aides like LIDAR in order to workaround current limitations.
Re:Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving Capability' Falls Short of Its...
by objektif on Saturday September 05, 2020 @09:04PM
(#24388128)
What does true inference mean?
Re:Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving Capability' Falls Short of Its...
by xsmasher on Saturday September 05, 2020 @10:43PM
(#24388568)
If I see a motorcycle go behind a billboard and not come out, I can reason that there is a motorcycle behind a billboard. I assume that's what they mean.
Re:Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving Capability' Falls Short of Its...
by HenryKissinger on Saturday September 05, 2020 @09:32PM
(#24388264)
Maybe ML researchers should try growing a live, organic human brain in the lab, rather than writing code.
Inb4 Dr. Frankenstein was the first ML pioneer.
Re:Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving Capability' Falls Short of Its...
by 256lie on Saturday September 05, 2020 @08:44PM
(#24387997)
Humans can do a lot of things computers cannot do. Computers can do a lot of things humans cannot do.
Re:Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving Capability' Falls Short of Its...
by 6gvONxR4sf7o on Saturday September 05, 2020 @08:25PM
(#24387909)
> Meh, everyone knew they couldn’t do it.
The everyone you hear from is very different from the everyone I hear from. I dislike Tesla's approach, but you have to admit that a ton of people are on board their hype train.
Re:Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving Capability' Falls Short of Its...
by swiley on Saturday September 05, 2020 @08:27PM
(#24387924)
Ive seen lots of people excited about tesla stock. Some people who were already fans of their car seemed to buy into the hype but I haven’t heard any non-fanboy who has paid any attention to self driving say they expected this to work out.
Re:Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving Capability' Falls Short of Its...
by bobthepanda on Saturday September 05, 2020 @08:46PM
(#24388009)
The problem is that most people are not paying huge attention to self-driving and the marketing will end up causing some people to misjudge the capabilities and get them killed. At which point fanboys will move the goalposts to "it kills less people than humans operating cars", which I don't think is necessarily true depending on how you want to measure that.
Re:Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving Capability' Falls Short of Its...
by xnx on Saturday September 05, 2020 @09:09PM
(#24388146)
Unfortunately, many people treat Tesla auto-pilot and Waymo's Driver as though they were similar, when Waymo is probably 10x more capable, reliable, robust. I see this as similar to how people equate Alexa and Siri simple voice commands to Google Assistant's deep knowledge.