"A double standard between humans and bots"

There's no reason to port Doom to stupid new things ever again.

What he (Dolgov) is saying is a belief that stems from rationalization. It *seems* like it's a proof because that's how he's phrasing it, but in the final analysis he's a biased observer expressing an opinion and bolstering it with a rationalization.

It's what we get every time we ask an expert for advice about something they don't directly know. Ask a physicist about dark energy, or a doctor about your unusual symptom, or a nutritionist about what you eat, or an economist about whether the Fed should lower rates... you'll get a reasonable sounding answer backed by rationalization.

We don't have proof that a computer can self-drive using only cameras (and not "computer can do what a brain does", which is a much wider problem set), but we have abundant statistical evidence that it can.

Tesla claims claims (mid 2026) that self driving has about 1/7 of the collisions of human driving. Fully deployed FSD would reduce driving fatalities by 90%.

While not a proof in the inductive-logic sense, it's probably good enough to become general consensus. Given the enormous amount of data they train on (10 billion miles driven?), I suspect the p-value is astronomically small.

And of note, I recently purchased a Tesla with self driving. The system requires you to be attentive while it's active, but I can say with complete honesty that full self driving is here now.

And it works. It'll go into a crowded parking lot and back itself into a parking space, it'll correctly navigate lane closures and safety cone situations, and just yesterday it correctly stopped for a road worker holding a stop sign, waited, and then proceeded when he turned the sign to "slow".

The reason I got the car is because a friend kept badgering me about... of all things... getting old. Our population is aging, and old people driving is a constant source of problems. Having a way for them to get around without being a danger to others seems like a good thing.

Oh, and coming off a day hike or a day of physical labor or something and being really tired it's nice to be able to hit the "start self driving" and have the thing take me completely home because I'm really beat and not very attentive.

...coding models? Are they comparable to the expensive ones?

I want a refund on my See Instant Crater event tickets! They costed me half a bitcoin, dammit!

Musk: "Stupid woke moon, eh, should be locked up or given correctional therapy to, eh, put it into a business-friendly orbit. It's in a socialist orbit right now. Put the socialists in orbit instead, heh heh heh."

Snow, rain, fog, changes in roads, construction, flooding.

Humans fuck those up also. It's just that traffic fortunately tends to be light during bad weather so that our screwups have limited impact. During the last heavy rain I drove in at night I probably made 10+ traffic violations because I couldn't see the damned lines. Fortunately there weren't a lot of other cars around to be co-confused with: the wise stayed home.

And if there is traffic in bad weather, such as work commutes, one just typically follows the person in front of them. If they by chance drove off a cliff I'd probably follow them down. So we have rules-of-thumb that mostly save us, but are highly imperfect.

I believe the goal has to be "better than humans" because humans seem to have a double standard for bots per screwups. Bots F-ing up spread like wildfire on social media.

Maybe we are collectively bigoted against automation, but being bots probably won't lobby to correct that or fight for their (alleged) rights, that's probably the way it will stay (at least until true sentience). Thus, I agree with the premise the driving system must be better than a human driver to be accepted.

then it's considered beatified behavior.

"Watch SpaceX Crash Into the Moon"

Too bad, Hawaii said 640 scopes oughtta be enough for anyone. It's their state.

Why not toss in arrogant billionaires instead? Astronomers have use.

It would be interesting to know what the numbers look like in terms of schools that are actually doing something at least modestly Apple-specific vs. ones basically reusing chromebook-focused plans on Apple hardware.

Anything you hand out is going to be 'a platform' and normalize it for the students(not necessarily a point in its favor; people tend to resent the deliberate limitations of hardware that IT has been told to at least try to make less useful for porn and cheating); but there is a potential difference in versatility and vendor flexibility between people actually adopting some macOS stuff and people concluding that chromebooks have been getting more expensive at an alarming clip, without feeling any less cheap, so Apple is now genuinely competitive even if you are just going to slap managed chrome on there and reuse your existing, chromebook focused, IT and curriculum stuff.

thought insects got aboard. They heard buzzing but nobody could actually see any insects. It turned out to be a race of beings who function at high speed, moving so quickly that humans couldn't see them.

They should remake a spy-drone version of that episode. The drones predict if somebody is about to swat at them and quickly shift out of the way.

Perhaps the same way the rotating Pioneer 10 scanned Jupiter's image: one line at a time while slowly shifting the angle, then digitally gluing the long spiral together to form something familiar to non-dizzy humans.