I can believe that.

I actually like Teslas, I just hate Elon more. Fuck that narcissistic piece of shit.

Human vision is great, human attention is not and neither is their reaction time. Computers are 100x better at both of those. If you throw lidar into the mix, then a car’s vision is now much better than a humans.

IMHO self driving cars have to be statistically 10x better than humans to be widely implemented. If it passes that threshold them I’m fine with them.

I’m assuming it’s a cost because it makes sense to me. His goal was to build full-self-driving (FSD) into ever car and sell the service as a subscription.

If you add another $500 in components then that’s a lot of cost (probably a lot cheaper today but this was 10 years ago). Cameras are cheap and can be spread around the car with additional non-FSD benefits where as lidar has much fewer uses when the cost is not covered. I think he used his “first-principles” argument as a justification to the engineers as another way for him to say “I don’t want to pay for lidar, make it work with the cheap cameras.”

Why else would management take off the table an obviously extremely useful safety tool?

“I’m not bad. I just tell people to do bad things and they do it. Why are you mad at me?”

I know this guy is a bit autistic, but he can’t be that dumb.

The would need to crash another order of magnitude for anything to happen. Tesla’s stock is crazy overvalued even now and the only justification for the over-valuation is the track record and insane over-promises of Musk. That’s the reality as investors see it. They will still bet on him until they’re thoroughly convinced that he’s not the golden child anymore.

He didn’t think they were better. He thought Tesla could get away without the more expensive lidar. Basically “humans can drive with just vision, that should be enough for an autonomous vehicle also.” Basically he did it because lidar is more expensive.

I think this all has to do with how you are going to compare and pick a winner in intelligence. the traditional way is usually with questions which llms tend to do quite well at. they have the tendency to hallucinate, but the amount they hallucinate is less than the amount they don’t know in my experience.

The issue is really all about how you measure intelligence. Is it a word problem? A knowledge problem? A logic problem?.. And then the issue is, can the average person get your question correct? A big part of my statement here is at the average person is not very capable of answering those types of questions.

In this day and age of alternate facts and vaccine denial, science denial, and other ways that your average person may try to be intentionally stupid… I put my money on an llm winning the intelligence competition versus the average person. In most cases I think the llm would beat me in 90% of the topics.

So, the question to you, is how do you create this competition? What are the questions you’re going to ask that the average person’s going to get right and the llm will get wrong?

I asked gemini and ChatGPT (the free one) and they both got it right. How many people do you think would get that right if you didn’t write it down in front of them? If Copilot gets it wrong, as per eletes’ post, then the AI success rate is 66%. Ask your average person walking down the street and I don’t think you would do any better. Plus there are a million questions that the LLMs would vastly out perform your average human.

Then asking it a logic question. What question are you asking that the llms are getting wrong and your average person is getting right? How are you proving intelligence here?

You say this like this is wrong.

Think of a question that you would ask an average person and then think of what the LLM would respond with. The vast majority of the time the llm would be more correct than most people.

This feeds into the right-wing fantasy that they’re super tough warriors. You see a lot of literature and fictional TV aimed in this direction.

It’s kind of like the white savior complex but instead of saving some victimized minority, they’re saving weaker and more helpless individuals in their own society. But all the military hero returns home and confronts nasty biker gang or evil drug dealers and kicks their ass without when trying. It all reinforced their world view.

You think I didn’t ask her if she wanted help and make the decision with her? She’s a strong woman and perfectly capable of speaking for her self. Her parents were also over and her mom was helping out. But the reality was that she was fine on her own. That was 18 years ago and the first of three kids. She’d tell you the same thing.

I scheduled two weeks off for the birth of my first child. Not paternity leave, just vacation time. My wife became a SAHM a few months before. I was bored and went back to work after 1 week. I couldn’t imagine 12 weeks.

The kid is just not doing that much. Feed, poop, change, sleep. And the child doesn’t recognize you at that stage. It’s all stimulus response. If he was crying and I picked him up, he didn’t care. I got zero emotional reward for the interaction with the child. Emotional bonding all happened around 3 months old and beyond. Before that the benefit was more in the shared experience with my wife of learning how to take care of a newborn. But really, it’s not that hard, and after one week it was old hat.