this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
1379 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

66601 readers
7085 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Mark Rober just set up one of the most interesting self-driving tests of 2025, and he did it by imitating Looney Tunes. The former NASA engineer and current YouTube mad scientist recreated the classic gag where Wile E. Coyote paints a tunnel onto a wall to fool the Road Runner.

Only this time, the test subject wasn’t a cartoon bird… it was a self-driving Tesla Model Y.

The result? A full-speed, 40 MPH impact straight into the wall. Watch the video and tell us what you think!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KayLeadfoot@fedia.io 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I am fairly dumb. Like, I am both dumb and I am fair-handed.

But, I am not pretentious!

So, let's talk about your points and the title. You said I had fairly dumb pretenses, let's talk through those.

  1. The title of the article... there is no obvious reason to think that I think computers think like humans, certainly not from that headline. Why do you think that?
  2. There are absolutely realistic situations exactly like this, not a pretense. Don't think Loony Tunes. Think 18 wheeler with a realistic photo of a highway depicted on the side, or a billboard with the same. The academic article where 3 PhD holding engineering types discuss the issue at length, which is linked in my article. This is accepted by peer-reviewed science and has been for years.
  3. Yes, I agree. That's not a pretense, that's just... a factually correct observation. You can't train an AI to avoid optical illusions if its only sensor input is optical. That's why the Tesla choice to skip LiDAR and remove radar is a terminal case of the stupids. They've invested in a dead-end sensor suite, as evidenced by their earning the title of Most Lethal Car Brand on the Road.

This does just impact Teslas, because they do not use LiDAR. To my knowledge, they are the only popular ADAS in the American market that would be fooled by a test like this.

Near as I can tell, you're basically wrong point by point here.

[–] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Excuse me.

  1. Did you write the article? I genuinely wasn't aiming my comment at you. It was merely commentary on the context that is inferred by the title. I just watched a clip of the car hitting the board. I didn't read the article, so i specified that i was referring to the article title. Not the author, not the article itself. Because it's the title that i was commenting on.

  2. That wasn't an 18 wheeler, it was a ground level board with a photorealistic picture that matched the background it was set up against. It wasnt a mural on a wall, or some other illusion with completely different properties. So no, i think this extremely specific set up for this test is unrealistic and is not comparable to actual scientific research, which i dont dispute. I dont dispute the fact that the lack of LiDAR is why teslas have this issue and that an autonomous driving system with only one type of sensor is a bad one. Again. I said i hate elon and tesla. Always have.

All i was saying is that this test, which is designed in a very specific way and produces a very specific result, is pointless. Its like me getting a bucket with a hole in and hypothesising that if i pour in waterz it will leak out of the hole, and then proving that and saying look! A bucket with a hole in leaks water...

[–] KayLeadfoot@fedia.io 1 points 2 hours ago

Y'all excused, don't sweat it! I sure did write the article you did not read. No worries, reading bores me sometimes, too.

Your take is one of the sillier opinions that I've come across in a minute. I won't waste any more time explaining it to you than that. The test does not strike informed individuals as pointless.