Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 83
5/19/2025, 7:49:02 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael A. Markosian, M.D.
@mikeamark
·
255d
@ClaudiuDP @GaryMarcus @elonmusk Training data is not the issue. The substrate for a fully self-driving vehicle is the issue. Musk contends that the substrate is vision and neural nets, no LiDAR needed on the vehicle.
Kekius Maximus
@elonmusk
·
1571d
@WholeMarsBlog Vision became so good that radar actually reduced SNR, so radar was turned off.

Humans drive with eyes & biological neural nets, so makes sense that cameras & silicon neural nets are only way to achieve generalized solution to self-driving.
Claudiu
@ClaudiuDP
·
255d
@mikeamark @GaryMarcus @elonmusk i think the point is that vision is not enough, and tesla is essentially conceding that fsd cannot match humans without enriching the training data with lidar data.
Michael A. Markosian, M.D.
@mikeamark
·
255d
@GaryMarcus @elonmusk Tesla is using LiDAR to collect data. That doesn’t mean that Teslas will now use LiDAR on the cars.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
255d
Now that it is public that Tesla is actively using lidar to collect city-specific data, I thought I would retweet what I said to @elonmusk in October 2021, when he was running around saying we would not need LiDAR for AVs:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
1571d
This logic makes no sense @elonmusk.

1. Birds flap their wings, but that does not mean that wings are the only way to achieve flight.

2. Current neural nets lack the cognitive depth and robustness that would be necessary to support reliable L5 self-driving form vision alone.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the use of LiDAR technology in Tesla's self-driving cars, engaging in a technical debate about the necessity of LiDAR versus vision-based systems. The tone is analytical and seeks to clarify Elon Musk's stance on the issue.

  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 technical aspects, adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to clarify a technical point, which can promote understanding among those following the debate. [+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 dialogue by addressing specific technical points without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]
  4. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement contributes to the public discourse on self-driving technology, using the platform responsibly to discuss a relevant issue. [+1]