Tesla 3 has Level 5 Ready hardware.

>Nvidia hardware will be inside each car and is 40x more powerful than current Tesla processing power.

If this doesn't tell you that it's bullshit instantly then nothing will convince you.

>>8424070
Are you familiar with the huge investment nvidia made into specialized hardware for Deep Neural networks?

It's actually true due to the fact Nvidia is producing hardware that is domain specific to AI-driven cars.

>>8424070
previous tesla hardware is a linux tablet

File: NVIDIA-Drive-PX-2-Specifications.jpg (210KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 2560x1440px

>>8424070
>>8424076
picture related

>>8424076
The board at Nvidia is expanding their product list purely to stay alive. Nvidia's leaders aren't trustworthy.

>>8424084
basically the previous tesla solution was just a data miner type thing. Collecting images and doing routine PR work.

They are basically on a whole different system now that is a legitimate attempt and push for fully AI driven. Different software and different hardware entirely from what the public thinks of "tesla autopilot".

>>8424090
Nvidia stock sure looks alive this year.

>>8424094
A hardware change for a microcontroller can't be that significant, so why even mention it in news?

>>8424102
why does apple hold a yearly PR spectacle to announce a slightly altered phone design?

The only thing Elon did was make a few tweets.

>>8424098
I wonder if the collusion between Nvidia and Microsoft's DirectX team has anything to do with it.

>put Nvidia board into your car
>car catches fire on start

I'm 100% against this.

These aren't cars, these are car-sized robots, with remote software update. They should be in cages with safety interlocks to ensure that they're powered down before any human steps in with them.

Imagine there are ten million of these, and a malicious update goes out to all of them at once, which changes their behavior and shuts off the channel for more updates.

We're not talking about cars simply accelerating wildly or failing to brake, we're talking about cars that can see other cars and pedestrians, and deliberately ram them and run them down. Ten million of them, all programmed to go Maximum Overdrive simultaneously, at a moment calculated to enable the most damage.

This bleeding-edge computer hardware makes it all the more likely that there will be hardware bugs which make it insecure.

>>8424063

Of course he would say that. But full auto ain't never going to happen, even if it is technically feasible the NHTSA will still require manned operators because it's more safe than not having one.

I'm very optimistic about Tesla, they have a factory capable of spitting out 300,000+ vehicles a year but don't believe everything Musk spews.

>>8424162
>implying this is not exactly what the 1% wants to be able to do

>>8424070
>>8424076
>>8424090
I know from the Bitcoin fad that GPU technology has sheer number crunching power that completely shits on any "conventional" computer

For instance the Core i7 5960X delivers 354 general purpose GFLOPS but in specialized tasks a GeForce 1080 can dump 9 TFLOPS

>>8424160
>Put ATI board into your car
>It's always late

>>8424172
The Mars ship is also big enough to be able to hit a city with a large fraction of the energy of the Hiroshima bomb. While the design calls for a reusable booster that would have a limited flight rate, an inventory of them in orbit (which is the stated plan) could all be triggered to launch themselves at targets at once.

Not quite up to the power of modern strategic nukes, but strat nukes are overpowered for the purpose. This would be plenty to devastate a city center or seat of government.

Then there are the Tesla house batteries, which require software thermal management to not start fires and explosions. And guess what? They're going to be connected to the internet.

Elon Musk: supervillain, or just psychologically incapable of taking the possibility of malicious action into account?

>>8424226
Every use case you're describing is the same. It's the need for increasing energy for new technologies.

It's not a new dilemma. Alfred Nobel founded the Nobel Prize out of guilt because he felt that his invention of dynamite put too much power to take lives into the hands of people.

If "people will use this to murder each other" were a rational argument to not invent something then the first Australopithecus should never have chipped that rock to make it pointier.

File: maxresdefault[3].jpg (113KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1920x1080px

>>8424226

>>8424247
>"people will use this to murder each other"
That is NOT the fucking argument. This is about deploying single points of failure for society.

What each of these has in common is that a software update can activate these as weapons of mass destruction, and at least one entity will hold the method of sending an update to all of them.

>>8424226

The latter, GE and Whirlpool have already pushed Internet appliances onto people and for the most part people don't want them. Also GE/Westinghouse successfully lobbied in favor of smart meters, Musk is very late to this party so to speak.

>>8424272
There is no interstellar travel without unlocking a deadly new world of kinetic weaponry. Interstellar travel by it's very nature requires the ability to make a big heavy thing go really fast and a big heavy thing going really fast by it's very nature will fuck up anything it slams into if it doesn't decelerate.

Self-driving cars require network access to download map changes, traffic reports, communicate remotely with other driverless cars, etc.

The house battery, you may have a point. Even if they send reports back home, their firmware should be a ROM because if the thing works in the first place you don't need an update to it.

>>8424279
The "internet of things" is one thing, the "internet of things that can kill you if they want to" is something else entirely.

>>8424283
Look: do you think anyone who feels like it should be able to build nuclear bombs?

Basically, when you let someone build things like this, you're accepting them as your government.

I'm not ready for King Musk.

>>8424295
Boeing and Airbus are allowed to build things that can easily be repurposed to kill thousands right now.

>>8424297
>thousands
Not the kind of thing you can hold over people to steer national or international policy.

>>8424303
Sure it is. Some cunt slammed 747s into skyscrapers and it steered national and international policy worldwide for a decade and a half afterwards.

>>8424310
They didn't have control over what effect that would have. Anyway, you know that's not what I meant.

The kind of bullshit you're talking about can be set off by a big enough man punching the right person hard enough.

It's not like simultaneously burning a hundred cities down.

A natural gas truck could be turned into a massive fuel air explosion in the middle of a city
Hasn't happened yet
Anything with large amounts of energy is a risk

>>8424362
Really not that massive, and fuel-air explosives are a lot harder than opening up a tank and lighting a match. An FAE with the capacity of an LNG truck wouldn't look much like an LNG truck.

The McVeigh bombing is the kind of thing you're thinking of. Yes, it's been done, quite a few times in the world. Yes, if it's done right, it's locally a big deal and could knock down a skyscraper or two. But it's nowhere near nuke scale.

>>8424162
The exact same thing was said about computer-run autopilots for aeroplanes. You know how that turned out.

>>8424402
>You know how that turned out.
Yeah, the autopilots aren't allowed to take off on their own and the pilots can shut them down whenever they like.

If you want to use it for malicious purposes, you have to possess each aircraft yourself and have a cooperating pilot for each plane you wish to misuse.

>>8424162
go to bed grampa

>>8424422
He is right. Imagine Isis or Al Qaeda, but instead of chemists they started studying computer science. All they would need is to hack some cars, from home. The update protocol must be very secure for this not to happen ever.

>>8424283
>Self-driving cars require network access to download map changes, traffic reports, communicate remotely with other driverless cars, etc.
Yes but this is not the same as over-the-air software updates. Maps and shit would not require root-level execution privileges.

Relevant
>https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/

>>8424063
'member the days when your car didn't worked you just changed a screw and everything was fine.
The bulb was the most technical on a car.
Now, a single bit of electronic won't work and the car is broke.
i hate this

>>8425951
I remember when I can't even understand what you're saying.

What happened?

>>8425951
Just drive old shit like I do. I have an old chevy from the 1980s. The local mechanics fucking love it during inspections. If anything goes wrong with it, I can call up the nearest junk yard and get a cheap replacement. Gas mileage isn't that bad at 20mpg. I've owned it outright for over 20 years while all my friends have owned more than 10-15 cars each in that amount of time and lost almost $300k all together in loans, extra insurance for the newest car, horrific parts cost replacements, and a bunch of other shit. Thank god, they get 25-30mpg and can brag about it to me, right?

Hell, my truck doesn't even have a radio or fuel injection in it. I did replace all the lights with LEDs though.

>>8425951
>work in data analysis
>working on autoparts case related to wire harness systems from 1990-2015
the number of different components in a cars wiring system is truly staggering, also cars have like a dozen computers today compared to like 1-2 in the 90s, im talking functional structural computers too not driver-facing display crap.

but we are in the middle of a time of troubles, just as 20 years ago cars were analog machines, 20 years from now they will be fully automated electric powered computerized systems, instead of a person being able to do everything on a car, people will not have to do anything just sit down and ride.

>>8424105
It really only mattered when steve jobs was still alive. He was actually a visionary who brought cool products to market. Now, apple is burning off the rest of their fumes and will eventually burn up and float away as just some mediocre consumer electronics company

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q14tkD5__dE

new video of level 5 demonstration

complete trip from home to work, including self parking, no human input.

>>8424063

Self driving cars are no where near ready. Try using it in the rain, unmarked or gravel or snow covered roads. The only people people who see it as a foregone conclusion are those who have no conceptual grasp for the reality of the software. In order to cover all those nasty corner cases, you have to program a sentient machine. But afterall, the torch of the narrative is being carried by those who eat popsci for breakfast with futurist turd pastries. Reality is substantially more complex than an analog of the bystander effect: "they'll figure it out".

>>8426311
Heh, auto cars like that would be totally fucked in my area. There's never lines on the roads, stop signs are always down, stop lights do different things depending on time of day (always red at night) and that's on the paved roads which there are few. Hell, even the roads on the GPS maps and Google maps are wrong for here. Street View Google is non-existent here. It'd be a cluster fuck of traffic violations and getting lost in someone's 1/2 mile driveway because it looks like everything else.

I didn't even mention the cattle and sheep herds on the roads going from field to field where you literally have to get out and herd them to move on.

>>8424063
Why is everyone excited?We haven't passed the turing test. So....no self driving anytime soon but there will be accidents when ppl take the tech for granted

>>8426358
>We haven't passed the turing test.

Lots of AI has passed the Turning test. The test itself (there are many) isn't a good measure of intelligence. It is only a measure to trick people into thinking it is a real human which isn't very good criteria really.

>>8426364
https://isturingtestpassed.github.io/

>>8426375
I already explained why they passed. That doesn't make them intelligent. Learn to read, kid.

>>8426378
Tricking dumb people, like yourself, doesn't qualify. Be smarter, kid

in video posted by OP we see driver who is allways in tense anticipation of moment when he should take over from AI.

imagine driving like that.

>>8426448
Well, that isn't what people are doing now. They are taking naps in the backseat, reading, etc while it drives them. Like god damn morons.

>>8424063
So if you're kick-ass at cuda and are good at physics you can work at Tesla. And also hate yourself.

>>8424163
>…the NHTSA will still require manned operators because it's more safe than not having one.
*extremely* arguable. I can imagine a lot of circumstances that a capable self-driving AI would handle fine on its own, but get fucked as soon as a human is involved because the human panics, takes over control, and ends up causing an accident that wouldn't have occurred otherwise.

Depending on how good the AI is, having an operator at the wheel could make the vehicle *less* safe.

>>8424295
>I'm not ready for King Musk.
I'd take him over either of the piles of shit currently running for office

>>8426343
which is why backwater farm towns will be the last place autonomous driving becomes a mainstay

>>8426343
Cars can see just like a person can, and respond to it largely like a person

>>8426598
And the current shit storm running the uk

>>8426692
Hell I'd take Musk over any leader on this shitty planet.

>>8424113
>collusion

Then why did AMD not only see a bigger performance gain, but Tflop for Tflop AMD now gets better performance in DX12?

are those ultrasonic shit safe for people around?
like whne you get ultrasoned several times a day while walking down a street, fucking whales can not find home because of ultrasonar

>>8427021
Are people whales? no
It doesn't need to high intensity shit

So long as there's a manual driver override then I guess this'll be pretty good.

>>8424070
https://youtu.be/HJ58dbd5g8g

>>8424162
Is funny, it has been proved already that Teslas but also other cars can be hacked and crashed.

>>8427269
>hacked and crashed
That's one thing, but the potential to be hacked and sent out to run down as many pedestrians as possible, using software and sensors already in it to identify and respond to the presence of pedestrians, is quite another.

>>8427269
You can hack anything. System designers have to be perfect, intruders have to find way in. Someone will always figure out how to counterfeit currency and the Treasury will always invent new mechanisms to prevent it.

>>8424063
>Tesla 3 has
if you're in the club

>>8427033
>So long as there's a manual driver override
I don't think that's the way they're doing it. It's all software. One big all-or-nothing computer system that's on all the time and controls everything, and can't be shut down except by a special maintenance process.

If the software doesn't want to let you steer, it has the motors and leverage to turn the wheels no matter how hard you're pulling on the steering wheel. You can only ask it for control back, and hope there's nothing malicious loaded.

Remember, Elon Musk got kicked out of PayPal for wanting to migrate all the servers to Windows. WINDOWS.

He's not capable of security-centric thinking. He casually dismisses catastrophic potential the way most people dismiss conspiracy theories involving space aliens.

>>8427346
Teslas run Ubuntu.

>>8427346
The needs to be a lever that physically disconnects these steering motors.

>>8427346
>I don't think that's the way they're doing it. It's all software. One big all-or-nothing computer system that's on all the time and controls everything, and can't be shut down except by a special maintenance process.
That's exactly how it works.
There always has to be a driver at the wheel, and if the driver takes his hands off the steering wheel the car slows down to a stop.

>>8427457
...if all the software works correctly.

Anyway, they've got features even on previous models that let the car drive itself with nobody in it, like the self-parking.

>>8427431
Pathetic. Real companies run BSD

>>8426589

there will almost always be a circumstance where both an human operator + car will be smarter than either on their own. And this is why drivers will still have to actually drive cars

>>8427516
>there will almost always be a circumstance where both an human operator + car will be smarter than either on their own
I don't buy into this claim. I think "assisted driving" is going to be way less safe, especially over time, and people get used to depending on it.

>>8427516
>>8427528
I mean, you look at the concept of assisted driving.

Does it take over in an emergency, to prevent an imminent collision? That's a big fucking problem, because you have to assume it has better judgement than the driver.

Does it relieve the driver of the boring, easy driving tasks? That's also a big fucking problem, because the boring part is paying attention to the road and being ready to prevent an accident. The driver is only relieved of this burden if he pays less attention and is less ready to take control.

Driving isn't like piloting. Aircraft don't follow roads to their destination, and keeping it perfectly level and pointed in the correct direction is tiring and requires you to focus on your instruments. An automobile in motion is rarely more than a couple of seconds from a serious accident, if the driver (or "autopilot") does the wrong thing. An aircraft autopilot can go full wacky, and the pilot will still have minutes to notice and correct it.

A car "autopilot" is doing a fundamentally different thing from an aircraft autopilot. It serves a different purpose, and creates a different kind of risk.

>>8425972
this

Shouldn't he use AMD hardware?

Because no driver

>>8427679
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJxCdh1Ps48