It did't ask if being pessimistic is useful. I asked if future looks hopeful for you, from where we are standing right now..
85 karma · joined February 13, 2018
No. None of those qualify as brain being cheated.
Why is future optimistic by default? By the way humanity is progressing, do you see any reason for hope? Do you disagree that we are in a technological runaway?
Last time I checked, I could move my eyes, up and down, side to side. I could also rotate my whole head, that also up and down and side to side.
And I am a human being.
The funny thing is that it is the same people who are arguing for self driving tech by saying that "Humans will do dumb shit", is the same ones who justify Tesla by saying "Humans should not do stupid things (like ignoring the cars warning)"..
That is damn crazy. You should consider your users to be complete idiots when improper use of the thing can endanger lives.
Why are we even debating this?
How many optical illusions do you usually see in the roads while driving, that can result in an accident?
I am not even talking about the "people are terrible at detecting objects directly in front of them" part.
I mean, how can you be a human being and say this? If we were "terrible at detecting objects directly in front of us", we would have been predated out of existence a long time ago..
Both are not true. It does not need money for a man to have a great breakthrough idea. It is also not possible to guarantee generation a great idea by just throwing more and more money at researchers...
What I mean is that. Do not "teach" the thing in real time. Instead collect the sensor data from the cars a human is driving (and also collect the human input also), and train the thing on it, safely inside the lab.
You say, they have done it already. But I am asking if they have done it enough. And if that is so, how come the accidents such as these are possible, when the situation is pretty out of a text book in basic driving?
I don't think it is reasonable at all to reach that conclusion based on the money involved...You just can't force progress/breakthrough just by throwing money at all problem..
>I'm also biased against human drivers, plenty of whom should not be behind the wheel.
So I think it would be quite trivial to drastically increase the punishment of dangerous practices if caught. I mean, suspend license or ban for life if you are caught texting while driving or drunk driving.
I don't know what is stopping them from simulating everything inside a computer.
Record the input from all the sensors when a car equipped sensors is driven through real roads by a human driver. Replay the sensor input, with enough random variations and let the algorithms train on it.
Continue adding to the library of sensor data by making the sensor car by driving it through more and more real life roads and in real life situations. Keep feeding the ever increasing library of sensor data to the algorithm, safely inside a computer.
I think beliefs such as these is fueled by the extremely naive implication that each death will cause the learning algorithm to "improve itself" so every self driving thing out there is safer owing to that death..
This assumes that the self driving tech will continue to increase in competence and will at some point surpass humans. I somehow find that extremely optimistic, bordering in on being naive.
Consider something like OCR or object recognition alone, where similar tech is applied. Even with decades of research behind it, it really cannot come any where close to a human in terms of reliability. I am talking about stuff that can be trained endlessly with any sort of risk. Still it does not show an ever increasing capability.
Now, machine learning and AI is only part of the picture. The other part is the sensors. This again is not anywhere near the sensors a human is equipped with.
From what we have seen in the tech industry in recent years is that trust in a tech by the people, even intelligent ones such as people who are investing in it, is not based on logic (Theranos, uBeam etc). I think such a climate is exactly what is enabling tests such as these. But unlike others, these tests are actually putting unsuspecting lives on line. And that should not be allowed..
I just hope it is not limited to HN, and there is more anti Tesla sentiment out there as well.
They deserve every bit of it.
Did it say the 6 seconds was immediately prior to the crash.
Why did you have to memorize everything? I have also done x86 assembly. You remember what you can. You look up the rest. Same today.
A man comes to you and ask you for money. He says that he is hungry. In this case, you have two options.
1. You can give him the money. But you risk being scammed, because you cannot actually check that the man is actually hungry. If you give them money, there is no way to make sure that they did not buy liquor instead of food. This is what Aadhar is supposed to solve.
2. You can offer to buy him food (not a parcel or takeaway). In this case, there is no risk of being scammed.
I think governments should try to do 2, instead of strapping on things like Aadhar in the name of doing 1, as it has a lot of chance of misuse and is vastly less reliable than 2..
As a solid implementation, instead of providing rations for rice and fuel, to prepare food, what if governments can open hotels, where one can have a solid, healthy meal for real cheap, For any one and every one who bothers to show up?
You see, the the projected promise is not to have electric cars in production. It is to build cars with tech that is far advanced and game changing, to a point that owning an ICE vehicle does not make sense...
> but also land rockets those are definitely not vaporware
The promise is not that they will build rockets. The promise is mars. That is why people are cheering for them and is investing in them..
Then there is Hyperloop. Classic vaporware..You might be seeing why I think these are vaporware now...
Thanks idiots of HN for flagging the comment. A fool and his money is soon parted. If there are too many fools in the world, it is only the preservation of that law that is dictating that entities like Musk should appear.
People should start to vote with their purse. In other words, stop buying these cars, or start selling their stocks.
2. Never trust head lines. Use head lines only as an indicator that a certain event has happened. Always do your on research on topics that are important to you.
3. Never gauge the importance of a news item by the size of the font it is printed (or the number of up votes it has if it is on a forum).
4. Always follow up on important stuff. For example, if there is a news about a politician doing something bad, the media ll forget it after a couple of days. But follow up it regularly, and know how the story ends..
5. When statistics is involved, be extremely skeptical.
Hasn't people always thought there were living in the pinnacle of technology era? I mean, if you look at texts that are 50 or 100 years old, you can see people chest thumping about how they are in the modern world.
Aren't we doing the same now?
If that is so, how they are benevolent in the first place, or "wanting to do good" as you say?
With half baked self driving tech, you have absolutely no control..
>"We’re trying to be a leader in apocalyptic defense scenarios," Musk continued.
Is this guy serious?
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2015/9/30/9421719/tesla-model-x-bio...
I think the question of using self driving vehicles comes down to this. Do you want to be part of a statistics that you can control, or do you want to be part of one that you cannot?
When we go in trains or planes, we are already being part of statistics that we cannot control. But those things also are extremely reliable.
So there seems to be a threshold, where someone should opt for being part of a statistics that you cannot control.
The people who are pushing SDV's, by some sleight of hand, seem to hide this aspect, and have successfully showcased raw, (projected) statistics that implicitly assumes the rate of progress with SDV's, also assume that SDV ll continue to progress until they reach that capability.....
>And also the idea that an automatic driver is easier to improve over time (skewing the trade-off better and better) than human drivers.
But there is always are risk of catastrophic regressions [1] with each update, right?
Tesla seems to have figured that, It is better to kill some of your customers then pissing every single one of them off...