Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 94
10/5/2024, 10:24:37 PM
X
In reply to:
Ninotan
@Tanino82
·
359d
@GaryMarcus @davecraige I agree with you but to be fair we can't honestly use the hypothesis that each self driving disengagement every 13mi (or 100 for that matter) leads inexorably to a fatal accident.

Still if it was even just 1/10 we're still talking orders of magnitude short.
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 engages in a discussion about the capabilities and limitations of Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology, comparing it to other autonomous driving technologies like Waymo. It critiques the fairness of comparing Tesla's FSD performance to human driving statistics, highlighting the differences in conditions and contexts. The tone is analytical and aims to clarify misconceptions in the ongoing debate about autonomous vehicle safety and performance.

  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 reasoned argument about the comparison of autonomous driving technologies. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by explaining why the comparison between Tesla's FSD and human driving statistics may not be fair, thus fostering a more informed discussion. [+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 addressing the issues in the comparison without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]