Except that the word, "recall", doesn't have two different meanings. It literally means the same thing here as it does for a recall wherein a Jeep has to have its shifter replaced / tweaked / whatever.
Just so happens that the latter can't be fixed via software, because it's not a software-based safety failure.
The former is fixable via software update, because it is a software-based safety failure.
Both, however, are safety failures. Both need to be fixed. Both situations incurred regulatory requirements to notify customers and provide a timely fix at no cost to affected customers, whether within or without the vehicle's warranty.
In short: both are recalls, and recall means the same thing in both cases: notify, fix, or face regulatory consequences.
> Except that the word, "recall", doesn't have two different meanings.
To the car owner who has to deal with a “recall”, it functionally does.
One type of a recall requires you to drive to a dealership/service center and leave your car there while the issue is being resolved. The other type requires you to do nothing aside from just waiting for the OTA update to install.
I too enjoy putting "quotes" around a word to make it seem like it means the thing I want to pretend it means, instead of engaging honestly with the actual situation. :-)
It should when it's required by the NHTSA and comes along with mandatory reporting, notification, and deadline obligations, along with optional free on-site execution of the fix.
That's what makes it a recall. A software update is the mechanism, the recall is the "Tesla did something wrong and is being held accountable" part.
I meant the title of the article probably should have used the term "update". To someone like me who doesn't know anything about vehicles, I was totally confused to see Tesla "recalling" vehicles over software.
I think you make a good point, benchmarks and metrics are indeed a better proxy for performance. Seems worth pointing out that, while "nowhere near half in [your] experience" are completely wrong, I don't take your word for it either. :-)
The trouble in my view is that the only way to know that the answers you're getting are accurate and not misleading is to study up on the answers elsewhere - which is a great habit to nurture, but is also precisely why these tools tend toward uselessness in their "general AI" bids. If I can't know how the answer was built, or how good that answer is, there's no point asking it - I'll just do my own reading and apply appropriate discernment as I go.
To be fair, hardly anyone does this today, nor did they before LLM-based chat bots... So it's a moot point, because society is largely doomed anyway. But a moot point can still be a valid one.
I also think the author makes a good point that we frequently confuse performance for competence. "It does a really good job at <X>!... or at least does a damn fine job of mimicking someone who acts like they do a really good job at <X>!"
By way of analogy, consider Elon Musk - by all appearances, he's a genius and is saving humanity - but by dint of his narcissism and largely smooth-brained approach to... well... everything... he's running all of us into an earlier planet-size grave than is necessary. His performance is fantastic, his competence is nonexistent.
> If I can't know how the answer was built, or how good that answer is, there's no point asking it
In many cases, like programming for example, you can know how good the answer is - either by reading it (verifying an idea is different from coming up with it) or by testing/running code.
How the answer was built seems completely irrelevant to me, I don’t get how a useful answer produced by method x is different from a useful answer produced by method y.
Heh definitely an eyebrow-raising comment!
On a second read of it though, I took it more as "because minimizing the code written is a pattern observed in the wild, AlphaCode mimics it as that's what it learned from."
I was tempted to just post "because f** you, that's why" to be funny, but then it just felt like a quick path to the banhammer. :-)
Seriously though, I'm beginning to believe that this is the path of all general discussion platforms - jerks and morons infiltrate, and the rest of us fall for it.
Just because something isn't surprising doesn't mean it is necessarily legal or ethical; meanwhile, Apple refuses to admit that "tl;dr" in public--quite likely because they appreciate the practice might not be legal and certainly isn't ethical--and so are attempting to instead claim it is justified, and so it is important to refuse to allow Apple employees that cop out and instead call them out for what we know to be the actual truth here.
Just so happens that the latter can't be fixed via software, because it's not a software-based safety failure.
The former is fixable via software update, because it is a software-based safety failure.
Both, however, are safety failures. Both need to be fixed. Both situations incurred regulatory requirements to notify customers and provide a timely fix at no cost to affected customers, whether within or without the vehicle's warranty.
In short: both are recalls, and recall means the same thing in both cases: notify, fix, or face regulatory consequences.