The amount of trust people are willing to place in AI is far more terrifying than the capabilities of these AI systems. People are too willing to give up their responsibility of critical thought to some kind of omnipotent messiah figure.
I don't know, people seem to quickly adjust their expectations to reality. Listening the conversation around ChatGPT that I'm hearing around me, people have become a lot more sceptical over just the last couple of weeks, as they've gotten a chance to use the system hands on rather than just read articles about it.
I think the goalposts have moved greatly though. Just a couple of years ago, most lay tech folks would've laughed you out the room if you suggested this could be done. The summarized answers by Bing and Google are relics comparitatively.
It’s really good at generating text and following prompts. Letting later responses use the previous prompts and responses as input really gives the illusion of a conversation.
But it’s extremely limited… you run up against the limits of what it really can do very quickly.
re:machine vision - What's particularly bad is that they don't actually put enough sensors in the cars to be safe.
Pre-collision systems, blind spot monitors, radar, parking sensors, etc are all so helpful and objectively good for drivers. Doing a vision only implementation and then claiming "full self driving" is where it gets awful.
But there are plenty of news articles and youtube videos that show it doing ridiculous unsafe things (including running into a truck that was driving perpendicular to the road). So I highly doubt it's as good as a normal driver, in fact I'd be shocked if it is.
There are also plenty of videos of human drivers doing absurd things, so this is hardly an argument.
All that matters is whether a random Tesla that you see on the street is more likely to crash into you than a different car. I know that Tesla has published there own statistics which say that it isn't, but I would be very interested in seeing an independent study about this.
I don't own a Tesla so have no direct experience, but my guess would be that it might crash less than a human, but has far more near-misses.
Edit: was curious, so I did the math. The standard unit seems to be 'crashes per 100 million miles' so according to the Tesla safety report (only source on Autopilot safety I could find easily) that works out to [0]: one accident for every 4.41 million miles driven = 22.7 accidents per 100 million miles.
Without autopilot, the AAA foundation (again, easily available source, feel free to find a better one, this is from 2014) [1] says that our best drivers are in the 60-69 age range, and have 241 accidents per 100 million miles. Our worst drivers are our younger teens (duh) with 1432 crashes per 100 million miles.
So unless you can find better data that contradicts this, Autopilot seems like a net benefit.
[0] https://insideevs.com/news/537818/tesla-autopilot-safety-rep...
[1] https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuri...
- People don't use autopilot in all situations, its use is biased towards the easiest driving conditions.
- Your non-autopilot statistics include old cars that have fewer safety systems.
A real comparison would normalise for these factors, which isn't trivial to do.
https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/what-is-automat...
Good point, I was mainly thinking of the 'AI saves lives' argument.
> of someone who actively avoids Teslas on the road, unless they also actively avoid cars
Probably they should avoid hitting _any_ cars =)
A tesla’s fsd code had gone through the sdlc they choose, involving project management.
I distrust project management.
Therefore: I only trust a tesla’s fsd mode as much as I trust a project manager’s driving.
> People are too willing to give up their responsibility of critical thought to some kind of omnipotent messiah figure.
This essentially describes humans probably since before we became homo sapiens. We again and again choose into positions of power those who can look competent instead of actual competent people.
Whenever I've used chatgpt I was impressed at the surface level, but digging deeper into a convo always turned up circular HS tier BS'ing. The fact that so many people online and on HN are saying chatgpt is astounding and revolutionary are just betraying that that such HS-essay level BS is convincing to them, and it's somewhat of a depressing though that so many people are so easy striken by a confidence trick.
You mean 'may' have solved that. Google is becoming a bullshit generator for SEO farms and spitting out ads at such a rate it can be near useless for some questions.
Now the real question is, can we tell when Google or GPT is dumping bullshit on us.