Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 90
10/5/2024, 9:31:56 PM
X
In reply to:
Dave Craige
@davecraige
·
359d
@GaryMarcus Driving by themselves for 13 miles without a human intervention is impressive.

And it is likely to get better and better over the next few years.

What exactly can’t they do?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
359d
@davecraige Um no. One recent study suggest they need human intervention every 13 miles on average, another said 100 miles. Neither is remotely close to “drive themselves”
Dave Craige
@davecraige
·
359d
@GaryMarcus what exactly doesn’t work though? Tesla’s can basically drive themselves now.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
359d
🧵👇Waymo seems to have come to the same conclusions I have.

If they are right, Tesla’s “FSD” is *never* going to work reliably in a fully autonomous way.
Ollie
@OllieAutonomy
·
359d
Did you know that @Waymo already had an AI model in 2018, loosely similar to Tesla's FSD? Why don't we see this today?
A thread 🧵

The statement engages in a discussion about the capabilities and progress of autonomous driving technology, specifically comparing Waymo's past achievements to current expectations. It critiques the notion that driving 13 miles without human intervention is impressive by providing a statistical comparison to human driving safety. The tone is critical and aims to provide a factual counterpoint to the previous statement.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and focuses on providing a factual perspective, adhering to the principle of doing no harm with words. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote understanding by providing a statistical context, which can foster a more informed discussion about autonomous driving technology. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism by challenging the previous claim with data, without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]