Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by daenz 2399 days ago
>The github project looks to be using an existing recording of a car driving from the comma2k19 dataset and predicting the expected vehicular response. No pedestrians endangered.

You sure? Yes, he's using a dataset for training, but nothing about his post indicates he's not running it the trained model on real roads. He claims to be testing the trained models:

>I did a few tests where pedestrians where suddenly crossing the road and the model gave it’s best job to not hit the human crossing the road.

How is he running these feedback tests? If the angle of the steering wheel changes the video input that is produced, how can he test that the AI would avoid hitting the human, unless he's testing in real life?

>My reading of it was that OP was in awe at the immense scale of engineering that went into Autopilot

He said how impossibly-long Autopilot's models take to train, and then goes on to say "When we compare this to what I will show you, you are gonna see that this is insane." It sounds like we're reading this differently, but to me, that sounds like "what they're doing is so over the top, you can achieve pretty good results in this space at a fraction of that, and I can prove it."

>It feels a bit much to admonish a newcomer to the space for perceived arrogance and irresponsibility

I don't care about what he's pursuing, and if you took it that way, then understand it is not my intention. I care that he is essentially putting a drunk AI driver behind the wheel of a car on roads shared by everyone, and endangering their lives. Apparently that's an unpopular opinion, given some of the responses ("big tech companies do it and bribe politicians to get away with killing people"). But I think it's the responsible opinion.

2 comments

Again I am not testing on real roads. The sentence When we compare this to what" I will show you, you are gonna see that this is insane" should mean that those numbers from Tesla are insane. And my project is not insane. That's what it should mean
I think the word ‘insane’ is difficult to interpret in this context, and this is why people are struggling to understand your meaning.

It could mean “they’re idiots for training for so long”, or could mean “it’s amazing how advanced/computationally intense their model/training is”.

I think it is your use of the word 'insane' that is confusing to people, suggest rewording that passage to make it more clear what you mean. Right now to a non-native English speaker/writer/reader such as me it reads as though you think that what they are doing is not good and that what you do is better.
Refer to (author) littlemtman's response below (curiously, getting downvoted to oblivion):

> No, I am not testing this on real roads only testing with videos so far. So no real cars only videos in cars