Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 88
10/5/2024, 9:34:17 PM
X
In reply to:
Dave Craige
@davecraige
·
359d
@GaryMarcus dunno. Seems like you are being overly pessimistic on this one.

Happy to look more closely at the data if you or anyone else has it.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
359d
@davecraige Waymo was doing that 8-10 years ago. It’s not at all impressive. Humans drive on average over 140 million miles between fatal accidents. It is many many orders of magnitude short.
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.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the capabilities and future of autonomous driving technology, specifically Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) feature. The conversation involves a debate on the reliability and progress of such technologies, with differing opinions on their current state and potential.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is part of a civil discourse on technology. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement contributes to understanding by engaging in a discussion about the data and progress of autonomous driving. [+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 invites constructive dialogue by expressing willingness to review data and engage in further discussion. [+1]