If it translates to massively less Tesla sales, then it means something. Tesla's valuation is so stupidly high because of musk. The big financial institutions are betting on him because they've done very well by him in the past. If tesla crashes and burns hard enough, his toxicity will spread to all his other ventures as well and his bullshit smart guy persona will be left in the dust.
Don't worry, this number will go down very shortly. Oh, not because we'll stop the spread, but because these morons will fire all the people in charge of tracking why all the kids are dying.
Keep in mind the source of this story. The author has every reason to describe the stuff on their group chat sound tame, so if it sounds bad, it's probably 3 times worse than that.
Because, in reality, peaceful protests don't work. We've been taught that they do, but they don't.
The most successful protest going on right now is against Tesla. A bit of anonymous property destruction and a boycott, crashing the stock price, those things actually work. Getting together and holding signs doesn't actually do anything, especially in some place like California.
Human vision is great, human attention is not and neither is their reaction time. Computers are 100x better at both of those. If you throw lidar into the mix, then a car's vision is now much better than a humans.
IMHO self driving cars have to be statistically 10x better than humans to be widely implemented. If it passes that threshold them I'm fine with them.
I'm assuming it's a cost because it makes sense to me. His goal was to build full-self-driving (FSD) into ever car and sell the service as a subscription.
If you add another $500 in components then that's a lot of cost (probably a lot cheaper today but this was 10 years ago). Cameras are cheap and can be spread around the car with additional non-FSD benefits where as lidar has much fewer uses when the cost is not covered. I think he used his "first-principles" argument as a justification to the engineers as another way for him to say "I don't want to pay for lidar, make it work with the cheap cameras."
Why else would management take off the table an obviously extremely useful safety tool?
The would need to crash another order of magnitude for anything to happen. Tesla's stock is crazy overvalued even now and the only justification for the over-valuation is the track record and insane over-promises of Musk. That's the reality as investors see it. They will still bet on him until they're thoroughly convinced that he's not the golden child anymore.
He didn't think they were better. He thought Tesla could get away without the more expensive lidar. Basically "humans can drive with just vision, that should be enough for an autonomous vehicle also." Basically he did it because lidar is more expensive.
I think this all has to do with how you are going to compare and pick a winner in intelligence. the traditional way is usually with questions which llms tend to do quite well at. they have the tendency to hallucinate, but the amount they hallucinate is less than the amount they don't know in my experience.
The issue is really all about how you measure intelligence. Is it a word problem? A knowledge problem? A logic problem?... And then the issue is, can the average person get your question correct? A big part of my statement here is at the average person is not very capable of answering those types of questions.
In this day and age of alternate facts and vaccine denial, science denial, and other ways that your average person may try to be intentionally stupid... I put my money on an llm winning the intelligence competition versus the average person. In most cases I think the llm would beat me in 90% of the topics.
So, the question to you, is how do you create this competition? What are the questions you're going to ask that the average person's going to get right and the llm will get wrong?
I asked gemini and ChatGPT (the free one) and they both got it right. How many people do you think would get that right if you didn't write it down in front of them? If Copilot gets it wrong, as per eletes' post, then the AI success rate is 66%. Ask your average person walking down the street and I don't think you would do any better. Plus there are a million questions that the LLMs would vastly out perform your average human.
Then asking it a logic question. What question are you asking that the llms are getting wrong and your average person is getting right? How are you proving intelligence here?
If it translates to massively less Tesla sales, then it means something. Tesla's valuation is so stupidly high because of musk. The big financial institutions are betting on him because they've done very well by him in the past. If tesla crashes and burns hard enough, his toxicity will spread to all his other ventures as well and his bullshit smart guy persona will be left in the dust.