Hacker News Reader

Comment by jqpabc123 | Hacker News Reader

So basically, their self driving software assumes that stop signs are all the same size and is using some simple scaling algorithm to judge where to stop?

And this is what passes for AI? The singularity is upon us folks.

Just give me a simple car with analog guages and a Bluetooth radio so I can talk hands free and listen to the 100+ albums I have stored on my phone. I'll provide any "intelligence" required, thank you very much.

View on HN

>And this is what passes for AI?

Autopilot is kind of a scam. Marketing and economic pixie dust from Elon over a basic camera lane assist system to make sure Teslas attract customers and hold their prestige and value.

But no, FSD is perpetually 6 months around the corner for him.

I do not know what buyers actually expect, but the phrase "FSD Beta" should sound very stupid to anyone with half a brain. It means that it almost drives like a human or better and it needs a bit of polishing. It is not only false, it is irresponsible too in this context.

Autopilot is kind of a scam.

AI is kind of a scam --- and autopilot is just one example.

FSD is perpetually 6 months around the corner for him.

And will probably remain so for decades to come.

“AI” is not a scam, but it’s a very wide term that people abuse.

The self driving software packages that work, the Cruze and Waymos and Mercedes of the world, are in limited careful rollout. These companies and teams want to make sure it’s safe and robust before entering mass market adoption.

Tesla is one of the weakest and most immature offerings of the major players, and it has been given the widest distribution. It is utterly frustrating.

"AI” is not a scam, but it’s a very wide term that people abuse.

The abuse starts with using the phrase "artificial intelligence".

If it's a scam, it's a really old one. It's been called AI since the state-of-the-art was a few "if" statements chained together.

It's an oldie but goodie --- but still a scam.

Selling what we call a computer as "intelligent" is like selling a DVD player as "creative" for it's ability to produce video. They are both just play back devices --- reproducing the work of others. Useful for sure but no more "intelligent" or "creative" than a hammer.

What would you call the field of Artificial Intelligence then? I can't think of anything.

Pattern Recognition? Automated Learning? Adaptive Software?

A new one that I'm kinda fond of --- Probabilistic Programming.

Any answer that "AI" provides has no assurance of correctness. It's up to you to judge if the probability is acceptable.

Do you really want to trust a self driving vehicle that misinterprets it's environment 20% of the time?

That's not a property of all AI techniques though, so calling the whole field by that seems very misleading.

Intelligence is not a property of all "AI" either.

None of those really cover much of the field.

AI also includes things like expert systems, which don't autmatically learn, adapt to much or recognize any patterns.

These type of systems are just a database with a multi-factor weighted search of some sort. Any "intelligence" involved comes directly from the real experts who set the weighting parameters and the user who interprets the results

Even if true, that doesn't make any of those other names fit any better.

The AI name works for me because it is goal oriented. Artificial Intelligence is implementing artificial systems that perform tasks that would otherwise require an intelligence (eg a human) to perform.

It doesn't really specify how you do that, it's just about what you're having it do.

Autopilot is just a marketing name for assisted cruise control. I think a majority of new cars have assisted cruise control at this point. My 2019 CRV has it.

Full self driving is the scam. And it goes up in price to $15,000 next week. It’s almost comical to imagine even one single person buying that.

This is true because they use cameras and camera lack depth information despite it being used with “state of the art AI”. This would not be an issue if they have any real depth based measurement system like a LiDAR.

How hard is it to use multiple cameras to gauge depth perception, as per human binocular vision?

(Serious question, I know nil about machine vision)

It's well understood to be impossible / not there yet, the argument then shifts to "but ML is awesome so it could happen?" to which the correct response is "anything is possible but we're nowhere close"

In some ways, it can be better than lidar. The colour signal can be perfectly matched with the depth signal to provide further context. This is particularly useful for tracking moving objects. Vision-based systems also have a far greater resolution, especially when additional cameras are added.

But having both would be best. The drawbacks of camera are additional compute being necessary for stitching and the risk of occlusions occurring due to something like adverse weather conditions. It also only offers a calculated estimation rather than a true distance measurement.

Related, why is rangefinding like on rangefinder cameras not usable?

1. videos: https://www.lensangle.com/how-do-rangefinder-cameras-work/

2. a photo or two: https://www.howtogeek.com/365801/what-is-a-rangefinder-camer...

Do Teslas have 2 main forward cameras? I know that Subarus do as you can see them

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/03/subaru-uses-stereo...

It’s extremely difficult, the biggest issue is that any vision based depth system is so damn noisy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com