There's 8 billion people on the planet. Are you saying 7 billion a year do get drunk?

Out of those 8 billion, 7,999,999,999 did not make as stupid a comment as you did. Let's celebrate!

That may or may not be a defect. Human eyes are also not seeing in all directions at once, unlike Tesla's cameras.

And it has nothing to do with the CEO's lie that cameras cannot be safer than humans, when it is the automation that makes automated cars safer. Mount a lidar to your roof. Are you now a safer driver? No. It is the automation which is safer, not the lidar alone.

You skipped this quote in your hurry to apologize for the liar. Are you a politician?

"If the goal were to just approximately match human performance or to build an assist product ..."

"approximately match" also means "no better than". Even if you take it to mean "only marginally better than" it's still a lie. If cameras are only as good as human eyes, they still don't get drunk, distracted, or drowsy.

No, I settled with him being a liar, because it is not the lidar which makes automated cars safer than humans, it is the automation. He said cars without lidar cannot be safer than humans. He is wrong. Lidar may add safety, but it does not add as much as automation itself.

Selection bias my left eye. There are enough drunk, distracted, and drowsy human drivers to kill thousands of people every year, and they are statistically significant; there are no drunk, distracted, or drowsy automated drivers, and that zero is also statistically significant. So is the difference, and it is entirely due to automation, not cameras vs lidar. And getting back to my original post, that is why I call that CEO a liar, and you have not addressed that.

In principle, it should be possible to develop a vaccine for certain forms of mental illness. Regrettably, no such thing currently exists and antivaxers are probably too far gone.

No. That is not what he said. He said cameras-only driverless cars cannot be better than humans.

That is a lie, and that's what I called him out for. Research be damned; cameras already have better resolution than the human eye, but that's not where the safety comes from. It comes from being automated, and not getting distracted, drunk, or drowsy. If you won't believe that without research papers, then you're a damned fool.

Where did I say anything about perfection? It's true that automation has a perfect record of not getting drunk, but I doubt that's what you meant.

Don't make up things to blame me for. There's plenty of real things for that.

You didn't read what I wrote. The claim is that camera-only automated cars can never be safer than human cars. That's wrong, because the safety comes from automation itself being a better driver than a human, even if it only has cameras. Other sensors may or may not add safety. The do not guarantee additional safety.

An automated car can also be worse than a human driver, even with a dozen sensors. But it won't be because of the sensors.

Automation is safer because it doesn't get distracted, drunk, or drowsy, not because it uses lidar. Adding lidar can add safety, but it doesn't guarantee it.

No you don't. Humans get distracted, drunk, and drowsy. Automation doesn't. That's where automation is safer than humans.

Lidar and radar can add safety, but they do not guarantee it.

He's lying.

"Better than humans" is possible with cameras only, because most of the errors humans make have nothing to with their eyes. Humans get distracted, drunk, and tired. Automation doesn't.

I'm sure lidar and radar can do better than cameras alone. But lidar and radar do not guarantee better than humans.

He's just trying to justify his expensive system.

Adoption is a function of existing adoption and existing availability of resources.

Extremely good OS' and truly amazing computers have failed, not because they were too expensive or had issues, but because they were perceived to be unpopular OR simply lacked enough software that could run on them.

Extremely bad OS' and truly awful computers have succeeded for the opposite reason.

Linux has an extremely good architecture, at least for machines that are mostly operating with CPUs. When most of the work is done by the GPU, it's less obvious that Linux provides the necessary mechanisms to manage resources and abstract away the hardware specifics. That doesn't mean I expect Linux to start fading, but I don't think a centralised OS is necessarily where things will go. However, the reason it hasn't done better so far is simply because potential users and potential software houses had a negative view of it (even though actual users were almost invariably loving the system).

Windows is crashing now not because it is a slow, bug-ridden piece of spyware (which it is, but users have never cared about that in the past), but because it is perceived in increasingly negative light.

They can get vertical samples from space and the ground. What they can't get from space or the ground is how the internals of a system evolve.

The problem with "models" in the abstract is that there are a lot of them and some of the time the thing you want is to know the same point relative to the system and not to the mudball.

Lots of people have gut feelings about AI, positive or negative.

Most of the AI research I can see people doing is focusing on single-element problems (such as finding counter-examples to a mathematics hypothesis) or solving very simple engineering systems (at most a dozen or so components). Most of the benchmarks are even simpler (write a short story at the level generally asked in English classes of primary school kids).

As a result, I think that people have developed either a very cynical outlook or a very optimistic look. Neither of these is entirely realistic, for the simple reason that no actual useful problem fits any of those descriptions.

Digging much deeper, I'm finding that when problems get into the hundreds or thousands of elements, even ChatGPT Sol 5.6 and Claude Fable 5 struggle badly to keep track of accurate relationships, let alone any level of detail.

If you want to solve a relatively simple coupled system (whether to use solar panels or direct solar heating, and which side of the house to place them), I'm sure AI is fine. If you want AI to write a five hundred word story detailing a conversation between Kim Possible, Rufus, and a smoked herring, I'm sure it could cope. Just.

If you want it to do anything hard enough that a human could do with an assistant, the tests I've been using (meaningful rather than synthetic problems) suggest you've developed a fantastically expensive blue smoke generator. We are going to need to see the inference engines developed for previous generations of AI, and the reasoners developed for the semantic web, and perhaps tools that haven't begun to be imagined yet, before AI can do anything non-trivial.