[ripjaygn]

> You are arguing the system would perform worse in contexts in which you have not seen it perform (because its designers decided to prevent it from such attempts).

Should we also assume that Mercedes cars can fly better than a plane, because we have not yet seen them fly?

What kind of logic is that?

In other news, OpenAI has solved AGI last year, but is keeping it a secret because it's too dangerous.

I have solved self driving, how can you say I didn't if you haven't seen it perform?

[llamaimperative]

No, but generally you should assume a system with near-100% performance within a well-defined ODD doesn't fall off to near-0% performance immediately adjacent to that ODD.

Here's a better example: let's say by law Mercedes has to restrict their cars from exceeding 80mph. They have a car that can reach 80mph in 2 seconds. Is it therefore credible to claim that the car is actually incapable of driving at 81mph?

Or is it more credible to say, "we don't know much about its performance beyond 80mph, but it can probably achieve something outside of that."

[ivewonyoung]

A car not being in front means more data for cameras because they can see more of the road ahead if the system can actually do proper road navigation.

The fact that it shuts off immediately shows that they're just copying what the car ahead does.

The system is unable to function on a pre-mapped highway on a clear day with lane markings if there is no other traffic on the road. What does that tell you?

[gmueckl]

What kind of messed-up logic is that? How many products do you think you own that contain hidden features that you're not supposed to know about? Just about everything with at least a microcontroller inside has extra software modules that you never learn about as the end user (e.g. service modes and factory calibration routines).