Oh man I definitely agree here. I’m a huge fan of that “better than a human” threshold. Roads are already very dangerous. One of the wildest things I’ve noticed is highway driving at night in very rainy conditions, sometimes visibility will be near zero. Yet a lot of drivers are zooming around pretending they can see. I feel like I’m in the twilight zone when it happens.
I didn’t say FSD was an LLM. My comment was implementation agnostic. My point was that drivers are less forgiving to what programmatically seems like a small error than someone who is trying to generate an essay.
Other than that it performed flawlessly for over 40 minutes in a live demo.
I get that this is an alpha, but the problem with full self driving is that’s way worse than what users want. If chatgpt gave you perfect information for 40 minutes (it doesn’t) and then huge lies once, we’d be using it everywhere. You can validate the lies.
With FSD, that threshold means a lot of people would have terrible accidents. No amount of perfect driving outside of that window would make you feel very happy.
When you get a MacBook you don’t need to worry about finding and downloading an external app for almost anything
I don’t think that’s really a fair complaint against Windows when Microsoft got sued for doing exactly that.
It also seems like that ruling was for AI that had nearly no human input.
If it’s infinite, you’d basically be gambling that no evil person exists.
I remember telling people it’s possible and having a whole bunch of online folk tell me how Stephen Wang from Princeton said there was a 98% chance that Democrats would win.
Nate Silver went from being congratulated for his predictions to getting criticized for mentioning that there were correlated errors which could easily result in a Republican president. It was interesting because Silver wasn’t even predicting a Republican victory just a 40% chance it could happen.