Not sure if it’s using the same FSD decision matrix but my model S chimed at me to drive into the intersection while sitting at a red light Last night with absolutely zero possibility it saw a green light anywhere in the intersection.
Perfectly isn’t a descriptor I would use. But this is just anecdotal.
Having handed over control of my vehicles to FSD many times, I’ve yet to come away from the experience feeling that my vehicle was operating in a safer regime for the general public than within my own control.
The problem IMO is the transition period. A mostly safe system will make the driver feel at ease, but when an emergency occurs and the driver must take over, it's likely that they won't be paying full attention.
On average you include sleep deprived people, driving way over the speed limit, at night, in bad weather, while drunk, and talking to someone. FSD is very likely situationally useful.
But you can know most of those adverse conditions don’t apply when you engage FSD on a given trip. As such the standard needs to be extremely high to avoid increased risks when you’re sober, wide awake, the conditions are good, and you have no need to speed.
> On average you include sleep deprived people, driving way over the speed limit, at night, in bad weather, while drunk, and talking to someone. FSD is very likely situationally useful.
Are those people also able to suprevise FSD like the law and Tesla expects them to? That's also a question.
Tesla's FSD still goes full-throttle dumbfuck from time to time. Like, randomly deciding it wants to speed into an intersection despite the red light having done absolutely nothing. Or swerving because of glare that you can't see, and a Toyota Corolla could discern with its radars, but which hits the cameras and so fires up the orange cat it's simulating on its CPU.
Something like 400 people just died because of a claim about nuclear weapons which is not backed up by evidence. Claims that have been echoed for decades…
Purportedly 400 people just died… Was it because a sovereign country wants to have Nuclear power? Maybe? Maybe not? Was it because Israel already has Nukes? Who knows… But it’s not a simple end of story situation unless lives have no value.
Radiopharmacy / Nuclear pharmacy. While peaceful, it's a delicate science and some kind of inspections are usually enforced. Thankfully, Iran did allow IAEA inspectors and is a signatory of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty). One could wish that was the reality of the nuclear operations of certain other states which are not scrutinized.
It is all very, even exceedingly simple. Iran’s nuclear program had no civilian explanation or justification. There’s nothing to be done with 60% enriched material other than go for nuclear weapons within a very short timeframe.
Model Control Protocol is not Model Context Protocol. We might be suffering from too many acronyms. (Just to be clearer, I think you’re referencing on the wrong MCP)
MCP is Model Context Protocol, a standardized API for declaring remote tools for AI to call. Roo Code supports Model Context Protocol, not your creation.
Where positive impact is purely defined as a reduction in investment on public initiatives and ignoring the much more complicated returns those investments may have produced both fiscally and socially.
The vehicle decided to go into oncoming traffic to clear a light change?! What type of an excuse is that. The vehicle should not have been in an intersection it is unable to clear.
Nothing annoys humans more than someone who obeys traffic laws in front of them. I've read the vehicle code, i know where you're supposed to leave gaps, time to clear, how long to stop. People get mighty aggressive if they perceive you as "losing them time".
At least here in the deep south people don't pack intersections before a light change like they did in southern california, that made driving way more tedious than it needed to be. Nothing like being at the front of the line, light changes in your favor, and you gotta wait for all the late-left-turn people sitting in the intersection.
eta: after watching the video; I've never seen a human do this without being impaired in some way. That is, i've only seen this a couple of times, and it was obvious the person shouldn't have been driving.
I've driven in many states, and IMO the state doesn't matter (north/south etc), but the metro size. The bigger the city -- the worse people drive. E.g. Chicago is pretty bad, being north.
No. Boston drivers are just about the worst I’ve seen. Worse than LA. Worse than any southern city. Boston isn’t small but it isn’t LA but it’s far worse.
Dallas is worse, depending on how you define "aggressive." (i live ~2 hours from NOLA and ~5 away from Dallas.) During rush hour i traffic break and Dallas and Vegas have the highest ratio of people that will do the "cut you off then brake because there's only 100' of runway, there". NOLA feels like inept drivers (oblivious is how i describe many Louisiana drivers, in general!)
I was living in Vicksburg as a kid, so the three big cities we would visit were Memphis to the north, New Orleans to the south, and Dallas to the west (skip Shreveport). And…I have no memories about crazy drivers cutting lanes like they didn’t exist in Dallas or Memphis.
>At least here in the deep south people don't pack intersections before a light change like they did in southern california, that made driving way more tedious than it needed to be.
In many many many intersections in LA, there is no protected left, so the only way to turn left is to sit in the intersection and then turn on red. I’ve seen a lot of people from the suburbs not understand this, and let 2 or 3 cycles of the light go by before they realize. And everyone sitting behind them waiting to also turn left gets (understandably imo) really annoyed.
We solved this problem in Massachusetts, it's called the "Massachusetts left". So long as you're the lead car stopped at a red light. The moment it turns green (or ideally, just before) you slam on the gas and whip left in front of oncoming traffic.
In fact it's the one time you can use your blinker as an honest signal and oncoming traffic will actually wait for you to make the left and get annoyed if you don't.
Just make sure to check the license plate of the lead car in the oncoming lane, if it's not a MA plate abort!
Everywhere he drove, he'd run red lights at full speed.
He had a passenger one day, who asked him, why don't you stop, that's dangerous!
He said, it's because I'm a cowboy.
Soon they came upon a green light. The cowboy hit the brakes and came to a complete stop.
The passenger asked, why'd you stop, the light's green!
The cowboy said, we gotta stop because there might be another cowboy coming through.
------
(To actually answer your question -- you have to watch the opposing driver. If they hesitate, or ideally, flash their headlights, you're good. If they also gun it, abort and hang out in the intersection until red. Exchange gestures as appropriate.)
As much as the headline leads to satirization, I think this is a good thing. I’d much rather have someone who’s leading the forefront of a technical innovation on the board than not. At least they can participate and inform the board what is being done and what isn’t being done. What can be changed and what we don’t yet have the tools to do.
A board that has Sam Altman on it is going to be much better able to craft safety guidance for the use and misuse of AI than a board that doesn’t have access to such a domain expert.
> A board that has Sam Altman on it is going to be much better able to craft safety guidance for the use and misuse of AI than a board that doesn’t have access to such a domain expert.
Incentives. You can't trust a man who makes billions on a this tech to make decisions in the best interest of the nation.
It's inevitable that commercial motives become a factor here. It's well known that OpenAI wants a "moat" and holding back competition with red tape for things they themselves have already managed to achieve before said red tape was introduced is a great way to make that happen.
I’ve never heard Altman describe so much as a ReLU, I’ve never seen him publish code, I’ve never seen him do a company’s thats not at least two of: fired for shady shit and self dealing (YC, OpenAI), a massive loss to investors and/or acquirers (Loopt, Socialcam, countless), paid for by a massive network of people who just back who the other guy backed.
The guy is a dark-triad sociopath, this is well documented [0], and yeah, let’s get fucking Larry Summers in there to play the cool head.
Guy’s a super, super creepy scam artist who fails up because people say difficult to define stuff like “domain expert” to keep the myth going.
Someone on the forefront of crypto like Sam Bankman Fried should pick the regulatory body for crypto. Ahahaha. It really is hilarious how some baseless principles get people to go to insane ends.
Exactly. Why would it be bad for Altman to be on the board? Aren’t these things more about understanding the dangers? Why would OpenAI benefit from hiding the dangers of this technology?
I mean, they’d just as much get screwed as human victims right?
OpenAI’s public advocacy centers around selling a particular, highly controversial image of what the salient dangers are and are not, which (purely coincidentally) aligns with the policy advocacy of erect barriers to new and emergent competition in favor of a narrow set of large incumbents.
OpenAI has a lot to gain by selling a particular view of the dangers of this technology, orthogonal to the accuracy of that view.
I would wager that Altman is one of probably, say, 50 or 100 people on the planet that have an extremely intimate preview of the next couple of years of AI models (the other 50-100 people being his contemporaries in the various companies working on such things, whether they're senior engineers or "AI safety" people, or all the people that are working with this technology at its most raw and bleeding edge forms).
So I'd definitely count him as someone that has a good view of what's going on, and what's coming over the horizon.
Most of the board members are company leaders that also benefit from regulatory capture and limited
competition. They probably will act identically or even just explicitly coordinate.
There’s a sentiment which isn’t really being expressed here so far.
I don’t begrudge people who are less fortunate and need help.
I don’t enjoy my food any less because someone who is hungry can get free food from a food bank.
There are so many ways that the government has helped the more successful. I for one was a beneficiary of PPP loan forgiveness (not by my choice but an election of my managing partner).
This attempts to balance the scales of what type of support people get who are going through different situations and at different times with different needs isn’t particularly productive. It might feel good in some self centered bitter way, but it doesn’t speak to whether this is a policy measure that has a positive effect on many people and is a net benefit to the economy as a whole.
Especially since a) college didn't start getting so expensive until the government got involved in loans and grants, and 2) none of these people were forced at gunpoint to take these loans. By law, every little detail had to be disclosed to them prior to signing of docs and disbursement.
Perfectly isn’t a descriptor I would use. But this is just anecdotal.