I don’t disagree, but I will go back to the point I was trying to make previously. Is the limitation one due to perception or decision-making? If the problem is you can’t see enough of the right things, that supports the argument that you need more sensors. But if the problem is that you aren’t making the right decisions with the information you have, more information is not necessarily better.

If performance is limited by object detection, then yes, but if performance is limited by decision-making and contextual awareness, then not necessarily.

That is not what I said. I said Waymo’s approach to self-driving is a sunk cost. The difference between the Waymo and Tesla approaches is not just sensor count. Waymo chose their approach a long time ago and are locked in to it. Tesla is also locked in to their approach, but they started later and framed the problem differently. It’s more complex than just lidar vs no lidar.

Perhaps, but again, if perception (ie ability to see) is the primary factor limiting safety performance, there is more than one way to overcome that.

Objectively, the Waymo driver operates in a much smaller service area than most humans drive, with the majority of miles accumulated on a small set of curated routes. If “safety is solved”, as you claim, why doesn’t Waymo operate everywhere that humans do?

You are bringing up engineering trade-offs. LiDAR brings some advantages, yes, but it also comes with its own disadvantages. The 5th generation I-PACE uses 34 independent sensors. So the real engineering trade-offs are much more complex than your example of a camera vs a thermocouple to measure temperature.

How about we get as good as humans first, and then we can talk about being better than humans. Sorry, even Waymo is not there yet. The claim is that safety performance is due to a lack of being able to see and more sensors is the solution. If we take that statement at face value (ie lacking data), then additional cameras could just as easily overcome the limitation as additional sensing modalities. But most accidents caused by humans are due to judgement errors, not an inability to see, so one could just as easily argue that super-human performance should be achievable without additional sensors. Incidentally, all approaches to self-driving (including Tesla’s) use way more sensors than humans possess, so if more sensors is all that is needed, we should have achieved super-human performance a long time ago.

Look, let’s be straight. When Waymo started their experiment in self-driving more than 20 years ago, cameras were not as good as they are today, embedded computers were not as powerful, there was a limit to how much custom hardware design they could do, power consumption was an issue, and computer vision was in its infancy. The only feasible approach at that time was to use a rich sensor array coupled with large data heuristics—maps that tell the car which lane to be in when going through an intersection, which light corresponds to the lane, which intersections have stop signs or yield signs, which intersections have no turn on red, what is the speed limit, which intersections should be avoided entirely because they are too complex, etc—to lower the burden of perception and decision-making that had to be made directly by the car in real time. In other words, the current Waymo driver and all of the engineering that was put into it is a sunk cost that they are not going to back out of now. If they were starting fresh today, I would be willing to bet that they would not take the same approach.

The “dashboard” isn’t publicly available so there is only the posted screenshot to go off of, but it literally looks like it converted a pdf into a set of slides and that’s it. The fact that these posts appear to be nothing more than an advertisement for Microsoft products, coupled with Satya not knowing what skill he was actually using (/grill-me not /drill-me) makes me think he asked the chatbot to design a dashboard, not build one. So it happily generated a bunch of buzz words (and a mock screenshot courtesy of the pdf) on slides and name dropped a bunch of Microsoft products just for the shareholder meeting. In other words the only actual work done here was the report generated by the, presumably human, Morgan Stanley analyst.

As someone else said, “The illusion of value.” On the other hand, consultants get paid millions to generate equally vacuous outputs, so maybe there is some value here, to the people who consume PowerPoint slides.

What the hell is that? Is that a salesman in PC-speak?

His podcast Better Offline is squarely targeted at people who are very much online. Indeed his entire gig is the epitome of online living.

If Ed Zitron really felt better offline, he wouldn't be making a living off of a podcast and constant AI bashing.

Not that I necessarily disagree with him though... It's just that the messenger doesn't really befit the message.

If even he thinks AI is dubious, you know AI is bad news.

Lol

They can work, but they have major issues.

1)For at least the first 6 months, if not the first several years, it will take more time and money to teach them than they generate. Why would any company do this?

2)As a hiring manager at company B, I see you apprenticed at company A. I have no idea if that means you're qualified. I can't trust company A to tell me, they're a competitor. Schools stand as a neutral 3rd party telling me that they've completed a set curriculum and should know that much. It's not perfect, but it's a start.

3)Some fields just have a huge amount of up front learning before you can be useful at all. Apprentice plumber? You can run and fetch tools and hold things in place while you watch and learn. Apprentice electrical engineer? You have no idea what inductance is on day one. There's literally nothing you can do. So basically at this point you're hoping the company sets up a school.

Can we add "surprise and delight" to that list of firing reasons?

Probably some of

E) Users are purposefully using privacy blockers that don't leak details of their computer

  as well. Why should a website know my OS? It's serving HTML, it shouldn't make a difference to it.

But if fewer people performing this behaviour died of starvation (or were too low in nutritional status to raise offspring to maturity - same thing really) than died of Salmonella it would still be a net benefit.