lb4r

Because a lot of English is spoken by non-native speakers.

You aren't wrong, but my assumption was (perhaps incorrectly?) that they would add Lidar sensors in addition to their cameras, not replace them.

I'm not saying what the better option would be (because I don't know), but many people approach the problem from a very myopic point of view.

Adopting Lidar would of course provide Tesla with higher-quality input for their self-driving model. But the quality of the input isn't the whole equation; you need to process it as well. In other words, adopting Lidar would incur costs not only on the hardware side, but also on the software side, which of course would result in more expensive cars. More expensive cars means less cars sold, and less cars sold means less data, which in turns means less input.

Does this result in a worse model? Again, I don't know, but I do know that the issue is more complicated (and not only because of the reasons I mentioned here) than many people seem to think.

I think of it like this: Many people would "happily" spend 5 years in prison for a more than probable chance to get filthy rich. That's a superset with, I imagine, significantly greater cardinality than the set of those willing to spend 25.

Obviously there is a sweet spot. For example, if you're okay with 60 years, than you're probably okay with 80. I'd imagine 20, give or take 5 years or so, is near that sweet spot, but that's just my gut feeling. Obviously statistics is key here, if there is any.

Just out of curiosity, why is the below example more git-friendly than the above? Smaller deltas? (and if so: why?)

Sure you can. Just don't shut down counter-arguments from, say, believers in certain form of animism, by implying that their side is invalid because there is no universally accepted definition of intelligence without giving your own assertion that same treatment.

Except that he doesn't acknowledge other points of view:

>As much as people want to believe, LLMs are not intelligent by any stretch.

Acknowledging other points of view would have sounded more like "People are free to believe what they want, but LLMs don't strike me as intelligent."

I don't disagree for the items you listed, but for something that exhibits what in many aspects can AT LEAST be mistaken for 'intelligence' (among signs of the complete opposite, of course), I would just say that there is no way for anyone to know.

>he's just pointing out there's no universal agreement on what intelligence even is.

Which is why I find it strange that he takes it upon himself to proclaim in a definitive manner that LLMs are not intelligent, and not "by any stretch."

But why are his toys floating around in the air and moving on their own? Why is there a guitar playing itself? Burden of proof just shifted.

>LLMs are not intelligent by any stretch.

>There is no concrete definition so there is no concrete way of deciding if something is intelligent.

You say there is no concrete way of deciding if something is intelligent, yet you yourself have decided that LLMs are not intelligent.

Wouldn't it be easier (since they probably have very skilled programmers working for them) and way, way more effective to just set up a team and create a quality open source project with one or two extremely stealthy backdoors?

Or just pay or threaten a struggling company or dev to insert them?