This is compared to no global warming at all far in the future. Meaning that we will still be richer than today, just not as rich as if we magically could sustain this economic growth without increasing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
I think the IPCC reports estimates are more realistic.
Couldnt it just be a selection effect? People who smoke cigarettes are less neurotic. I would assume people with long-covid are on average more neutrotic, as people with high neuroticism is more likely to attribute sickness to long-covid?
Has happened multiple times. Lastly in the Olympics. The evidence strongly suggests Imane Khelif is of male sex.
Maybe most notable (though not boxing), 800m finals for women in 2016, gold, silver and bronze went to athletes of male sex.
All of these are far less capable than FSD. They might have more advanced regulatory approval because they have strong limitations of when it can be used, but if you drive the same route and compare, its not even close.
I doubt it. Yes, FSD is more flexible and can also drive reasonably well on city streets, but there is a reason why it is not certified for level 3 on motorways. It would most likely fail certification. With a level 3 system, I can take my eyes off the road and watch a movie. Doing that with FSD, even in the best conditions, is suicidal. Level 3 vehicles must have an extremely low failure rate. Any crash would quickly be picked up by the media.
FSD is a versatile level 2 system, but at best a prototype for level 3. If we are talking about prototypes, it has to be compared to prototypes from other manufacturers like this <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uSph0asNsk> fully autonomous system from ... 11 years ago. The reason FSD is available to the average consumer is mostly a matter of philosophy, not technology.
> With a level 3 system, I can take my eyes off the road and watch a movie. Doing that with FSD, even in the best conditions, is suicidal.
That is hyperbole at best. I've test driven a Tesla with FSD and it worked flawlessly, such that I would have been perfectly safe taking my eyes off the road. Of course one test drive is not sufficient data to say one should trust the system all the time, but you are making the claim that it is never trustworthy which isn't true.
Oh, it's 100% trustworthy until it suddenly isn't.
I have driven a number of level 2 cars on the motorway and almost all of them can do extended zero-intervention driving, but that does not make them safe. The failure rate compared to humans is still sky high.
Multiple independent FSD tests have shown that you need to take over several times an hour to avoid dangerous or illegal situations <https://electrek.co/2024/09/26/tesla-full-self-driving-third...>. The number will be lower on a motorway and you will sometimes have time to correct even if you are not looking, but the number of failures is still significant. If you take your eyes off the road, it is only a matter of time before you end up in a ditch.
I stand by my statement. The system is _never_ trustworthy enough to take your eyes off the road.
Karpathy said in some podcast that Tela uses LIDAR in training, and by doing this they can get a lot of the benefits.
Not sure that all off the "worlds experts" agree with you that you HAVE to use LIDAR.
Rate of progress for FSD has been very impressive lately. I personally think that its very plausible that Tesla might beat Waymo to large scale location independent autonomous driving.
The stats on the latest FSD are still terrible. It still needs human intervention far too frequently and is no where near being able to run without a human in the car or Tesla accepting liability for crashes.
Waymo's recent experiment with multimodal models and a purely camera based system (EMMA) validate some of the claims that using LIDAR data in training does help. Pretty neat! Still not as good as a LIDAR + RADAR based system.
