Thorny_Insight

@[email protected]

I prioritize ethics over optics even if it means facing criticism.

Sharing my honest beliefs, welcoming constructive debates, and embracing the potential for evolving viewpoints. Independent thinker navigating through conversations without allegiance to any particular side.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

Thorny_Insight ,

Even this "article" is about nothing happening. The driver was paying attention and took over when the vehicle was about to do something it should. Just as they should.

Also, even if FSD was 10x safer than a human driver and we replaced every single car on the roads with Teslas there would still be 8 people dying every single day in the US alone. Linking articles about these accidents does not prove it being unsafe. It only feeds the confirmation bias of the person posting it and the people upvoting it. People want it to be unsafe so that they can shit on Elon. The standards they apply to Tesla are ridiculous compared to that of other companies. The extremely limited Mercedes Drive Pilot is praised as revolutionary tech while FSD already checks most boxes for Level 4 self-driving.

Thorny_Insight ,

It's called Full Self Driving (Supervised) nowdays. They changed the name.

The vehicle is capable of driving you to the grocery store on the other side of the city and back, sometimes with zero interventions from the driver. If that's not Full Self Driving then I don't know what is.

Thorny_Insight ,

How does it not fully self drive? What's your definition of full self driving then?

Mercedes Drive Pilot is Level 3 and even it will prompt you to take over when necessary, does it not fully self drive then either? What about Waymo/Cruze? They have remote operators controlling the vehicles when they get stuck. Not fully self driving either? Is the standard that it needs to be absolutely flawless and never fail or what is it?

Thorny_Insight ,

It’s about as intelligent as a newborn.

Newborns can't even utter one cohesive word. I don't get the point of making such an obviously false claims about anything.

Thorny_Insight ,

80 people die every single day in traffic accidents in the US alone and we're focusing on the leading company trying to solve this issue when their car almost hits a train.

Thorny_Insight ,

Intelligence is not binary, but a spectrum.

Thorny_Insight , (edited )

The new models with hardware 4 (atleast models S and X) have a radar but then again humans can manage without so I have no doubt that a vision-based system will be more than sufficient in the end.

Thorny_Insight ,

Then what is full self driving to you? How good does the system need to be to qualify?

Thorny_Insight ,

I can't find any source for that claim

Thorny_Insight ,

In what way is it not ready to use? Does cars have some other driver assistant features that are fool proof? You're not supposed to blindly trust any of those. Why would FSD be an exception? The standards people are aplying to it are quite unreasonable.

Thorny_Insight ,

It's called Full Self Driving (Supervised)

Yeah, it will be able to drive without driver intervention eventually. Atleast that's their goal. Right now however, it's level 2 and no-one is claiming otherwise.

In what way is it not ready to use?

Thorny_Insight ,

It's a level 2 self driving system which by definition requires driver supervision. It's even stated in the name. What are the standards it doesn't meet?

Thorny_Insight ,

What makes them the leader? You can't even buy a car from them and I would be willing to bet that the number of kilometers driven on autopilot/FSD on Teslas is orders of magnitude greater than the competition and rapidly increasing each day. Even the most charitable view would place them on par with Tesla at best. Waymo/Cruze both have remote operators helping for when their vehicles get stuck. Even the MB Drive Pilot will ask for the driver to take over when needed. They're not fully functional self-driving vehicles no more than Teslas are.

Thorny_Insight ,

You literally cannot buy FSD without being told that it needs driver supervision. It also tells you that every single time you enable it and it's constantly nagging to you when you take your hands off the wheel aswell as if you're looking at your phone etc. and given enough warnings the system locks you out of it.

Has Musk been dishonest/misleading about it's capabilities in the past? Yes. Is there a single Tesla owner with FSD who doesn't know the truth? No.

Thorny_Insight ,

Mercedes Drive Pilot is hilariously limited system. It for example needs a car in front of it that it can follow or else it wont work. It also only works on limited number of hand-picked highways in California and Nevada.

There's a video on YouTube comparing FSD to Mercedes' equivalent driver assistant software (not the level 3 one) and it's not even a competition. The Mercedes system is completely unusable.

Thorny_Insight ,

Did you watch the video? It was insanely foggy there. It makes no difference how big the obstacle is if you can't even see 50 meters ahead of you.

Also, the car did see the train. It just clearly didn't understand what it was and how to react to it. That's why the car has a driver who does. I'm sure this exact edge case will be added to the training data so that this doesn't happen again. Stuff like this takes ages to iron out. FSD is not a finished product. It's under development and receives constant updates and keeps improving. That's why it's classified as level 2 and not level 5.

Yes. It's unreasonable to expect brand new technology to be able to deal with every possible scenario that a car can encounter on traffic. Just because the concept of train in a fog makes sense to you as a human doesn't mean it's obvious to the AI.

Thorny_Insight ,

This fully autonomous argument is beat to death already. Every single Tesla owner knows you're supposed to pay attention and be ready to take over when necessary. That is such a strawman argument. Nobody blames the car when automatic braking fails to see the car infront of it. It might save your ass if you're distracted but ultimately it's always the driver whose responsible. FSD is no different.

Thorny_Insight ,

"Confidently incorrect"

Then proceeds to link over 2 year old article and even that aknowledges the existence of such system in the title.

It has an indoor camera that is constantly monitoring the driver and nags when they're not paying attention. That's a fact. Nothing what I said has been proven incorrect.

How Tesla's Driver Monitoring System Works

Thorny_Insight ,

You can't see 50 meters ahead in that fog.

Thorny_Insight , (edited )

Nirvana fallacy

Yeah would be nice. Unfortunelately it isn't so and it's never going to. Chasing after people generating distasteful AI pictures is not making the world a better place.

Thorny_Insight , (edited )

Alternative perspective is to think that does watching normal porn make heterosexual men more likely to rape women? If not then why would it be different in this case?

The vast majority of pedophiles never offend. Most people in jail for child abuse are just plain old rapists with no special interest towards minors, they're just an easy target. Pedophilia just describes what they're attracted to. It's not a synonym to child rapist. It usually needs to coinside with psychopathy to create the monster that most people think about when hearing that word.

Thorny_Insight ,

Wtf is this thinking.

Dispassionate, intellectually honest analysis.

Thorny_Insight ,

Article talks about 2A4 variant but the picture is of a Leopard 1

Thorny_Insight ,

Someone paralyzed from the neck down for whom this enables the use of computers, which they before couldn't do, probably would rather have the outdated model than none

Thorny_Insight ,

Yeah, “just shove it in deeper” sounds like a brilliant plan.

Does your past experience in brain surgery suggest that this might be a bad idea?

They're volunteers with next to nothing to lose. This isn't some healthy person who just wants to play angry birds with their mind. They're getting an experimental device planted into their brain. I'm sure they're aware of the risks.

Thorny_Insight ,

What's the alternative? We either don't create this technology at all or we do and accept the fact that it's going to involve a lot of trial and error. You don't just skip all that and jump to the final product. There's only so much you can test on animals which exactly isn't the most ethical thing to begin with anyway. At some point you're going to need to stick it in a human brain.

The first heart transplant recepient died after 18 days. Should we have not done that either?

Thorny_Insight ,

Like by sticking them deeper?

Thorny_Insight ,

Is every non-blindly hateful person a fanboy? Any chance that some of us just look at things as they are instead of getting emotionally invested with it?

Thorny_Insight ,

And I'm sure they're aware of that. What are you trying to say here? Abandon development of this technology?

Thorny_Insight , (edited )

That's up to the individual, I don't think there's universal answer to that. If it eventually makes it possible to restore a person's sight, hearing or the ability to walk, I'm sure most would take the gamble.

Thorny_Insight ,

I don't think it's capable of doing what the ultimate goal of Neuralink is, which is much more than being able to move a cursor on the screen. Science and technology wont stop advancing just because it's potenttially risky.

Thorny_Insight ,

I didn't get a pickup so that I could transport groceries but I can't imagine having to do all my grocery shopping by bike. It's a +20km round trip and I usually come back with 2 - 3 bags of food which would be impossible to transport by either of my bikes so I would need a third one or a trailer just for grocery shopping and even in that case the issue that remains is that my SO couldn't come with me unless she also rides a bike.

I mean I could do it if I absolutely had to but having a car makes it so much easier. I tried bike commuting for a while too but quickly realized that it's turning an enjoyable hobby into a chore that I approach with apprehension, so I stopped doing that and instead only ride bikes as a hobby and for fun.

Thorny_Insight ,

I need a car for work so getting rid of it is not an option either way so I don't feel any guilt about using it to haul groceries. There's a lot to improve infrastructure-wise to encourage other means of transportation but I don't see cars as inherently bad. It's only bad when you force everyone to get one (or two) to even be able to live their lives.

Thorny_Insight ,

Oh yeah there's definitely a lot to improve. A ton of people would be more than willing to ditch their cars if there was viable alternatives that don't massively inconvenience our daily lives.

There is a grocery store only about 500 meters from my house but small ones like that are so much more expensive than the one I go to now. I'm easily saving my monthly fuel costs just by shopping there.

Thorny_Insight ,

Grocery trips are just a tiny portion of from where my fuel costs come from. I use the truck for work. I'd save practically no money at all by walking to the store.

Thorny_Insight ,

I live in Finland

Thorny_Insight ,

Don't be. I'm much rather here.

Thorny_Insight ,

It's not inherently toxic but I'd argue the experience is a net-negative. Social media rewards all the bad and inflammatory behaviour that makes it so. The incentives are not aligned with being nice to each other.

One of the culprits in my mind are visible like counts. The ability to up- and downvote messages is a good one but the scores shouldn't be visible to anyone. Comments like "ACAB" or "eat the rich" bring zero value into the discussion but rather are just meant to fish likes from your own team and annoy the opposition. I doubt that removing that feature now would no longer solve the issue but it's one of the main things that trained us to act that way.

Personally I'm hoping for more powerful tools for curating our feeds. It's probably going to have to be AI based as I can't imagine how else you'd do that but on top of just simple word and domain filters (which even lemmy doesn't have) we need smart filters aswell that you could enable which filters out topics you don't like seeing. Kind of like with enough people using adblockers it would discourage ads-based bussines models and incentivices companies to come up with alternatives. With enough people using similar blockers for toxic content the people creating would quickly realize they're shouting into the void.

Thorny_Insight ,

Negativity get's more engagement on Lemmy aswell. The vast majority of content on the front page is about the world being on fire.

Thorny_Insight ,

This is the only way. Ruthlessly blocking everything you're not interested about seeing.

By blocklist on Lemmy is 1200+ users and communities long and even though I still see plenty of toxicity the difference is still noticeable. The only issue with it is that it's quite blunt tool. An user might be making inflammatory comments only on threads about a certain topic and then get blocked for it but then I'm not seeing any of their other content either which rarely is all toxic.

Thorny_Insight ,

The only reason I don’t do the same thing is that I want to be aware of how prevalent the toxicity is.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the logic here. I did a similar thing years ago by pretty much stopping paying attention to the news. You'd think that would lead to me not being aware of what's going on in the world but turns out one does not simply just turn off the news. When something actually newsworthy happens I'll hear about it just the same way as everyone else. It's effectively impossible to avoid even if you try to. The only kind of news I more or less totally insulated myself from is celebrity gossip and other similar entirely meaningless trash.

Also I don't block people to create an echo chamber for myself. More often than not it's not what people say that get them blocked, it's how they say it. I'm more than willing to engage an actual nazi on a debate as long as they're approaching it in a good faith even to some extent. It's people that are just throwing shit that I'm trying to get rid of. I'm basically just trying to improve the signal-to-noise ratio but the noise will only get quieter but never dissapear completely.

Thorny_Insight ,

Salty liquorice ice cream, probably.

It's not a weird taste to me but I'd imagine the vast majority of non-Finnish people would absolutely hate it.

Thorny_Insight ,

I remember seeing on a food show years ago a burger with a doughnut as a bun. I've never tasted one but I thought to myself that might actually work.

Thorny_Insight ,

I don't know what the difference is. Liquorice and salty liquorice are similar but separate products.

Thorny_Insight ,

Did it get stuck to your teeth when you tried biting it? May have been a Merkkari

Thorny_Insight ,

We may very well be doomed if AI reaches consciousness but I'm not quite convinced LLM's is the way to get there but even if it was and it was solely trained on social media content I still wouldn't expect it to adopt the behaviour of your typical social media commentor. The toxic behaviour on social media is, in my view, almost solely driven by our human ego and pettiness. It's not obvious to me that AI would care about things like winning arguments or coming up with snide remarks and such. What I see as the most likely outcome would be endlessly patient and quite autistic-like being that's balanced in it's views and would most likely be pretty difficult to argue against. I doubt humans are anywhere even near the far-end of the intelligence spectrum and something with the information processing capability that's orders of magnitude greater than ours would more than likely not get caught up in stuff like confirmation bias, partisan thinking, motivated reasoning, being tossed around by emotions, cognitive dissonance etc. Those are by definitions human features.

Thorny_Insight ,

No, the other user is claiming that they don't have a "working" full self driving but is being vague about what they mean by "working".

Full Self Driving is just the name of the software. There's also autopilot but that's different. The end goal of it is to eventually be capable of level 5 self driving so that's why it's named like that even though it has been a work in progress all of it's existence. Wouldn't make much sense to call it "partial self driving under supervision" because Full Self Driving is a better marketing term. Misleading? Well yeah perhaps but that's what marketing teams do. Nothing new there. Not a single Tesla owner is under the illusion that you can just enable the system and take a nap. Doesn't mean people don't do that but they know that they shouldn't. The system tells you that every single time you enable it.

Personally I don't see a huge issue with that name. It's level 2 meaning that it needs driver supervision and it's by no means flawless but it does what the name implies: drives itself. It's not just an advanced cruise control like for example the Mercedes Drive Pilot but it is actually capable of independently driving itself and especially with the V12 it's actually getting quite good at it.

Thorny_Insight ,

I'll grant you that the name is misleading. They should change it. It's also plausible that there's some number of customers for which the false marketing claims may have been the deciding factor in their purchase decision.

Is there something else you feel I'm confused about?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines
    •