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!
I remember elon saying something along the lines of his camera system being just as good and they thusly don’t need to employ things like LIDAR.
Things that happen when you rely exclusively on optical sensors, i.e. cameras. But that’s just cheaper, more money for Nazi Elon.
Are we reeeeally sure optical sensors with fast image recognition software are cheaper than LiDAR?
The hardware is, which is the important part at scale: even if the code is 10x more expensive when you sell millions of the car it becomes pennies/car
Turns out having radar is rather important…
It’s dirt cheap, too. If this was a cost-cutting measure, it was a thoroughly idiotic one. Which feels like the mark… of a certain someone I can think of
I remember Elon foolishly saying his cars don’t need radar or lidar. Even software-disabling radar in cars that already had the hardware.
Not even just his cars, he thinks the MILITARY, doesn’t need radar and can just use cameras to spot and track stealth fighters.
He’s a fucking lunatic.
As an augmentation, the ability to spot and track objects visually would be amazing.
But then planes just have to fly above 10k ft, and pretty much guaranteed cloud cover.
I mean his right, his cars don’t need radar or lidar. They just drive into things.
Yeah but the radar/lidar may allow them to drive into things quicker.
This is why it’s fucking stupid Tesla removed Lidar sensors and relies on cameras only.
But also who would want a tesla, fuck em
I was horrified when I learned that the autopilot relies entirely on cameras. Nope, nope, nope.
Leon said other sensors were unnecessary because human driving is all done through the sense of sight…proving that he has no idea how humans work either (despite purportedly being a human).
They never had lidarr. They used to have radar and uss but they decided “vision” was good enough. This conveniently occurred when they had supply chain issues during covid.
They also removed radar, which is what allowed them to make all of those “it saw something three vehicles ahead and braked to avoid a pileup that hadn’t even started yet” videos. Removing radar was the single most impactful change Tesla made in regards to FSD, and it’s all because Musk basically decided “people drive fine with just their eyes, so cars should too.”
I seem to recall that fElon prevented the self driving team from utilizing LIDAR for any part of the system, instead demanding that everything run off of optical input. Does anyone else remember the same?
Was just thinking this
A single LiDAR sensor prevents this kind of issue
Even RADAR prevents this and the cars had RADAR! They started disabling RADAR for the older cars since the new ones don’t even have the hardware installed.
Indeed there is a lidar car in the video and it works way better in many scenarios.
I’m trying to find an article that covers what I remember but I know for sure that it’s been a good while since I saw the info I recall. Hopefully I can dig something up.
That might actually be the exact article I’m thinking about. Thanks!
What’s cool is that Teslas used to have radar sensors, at least, but Elon removed them from production to save money. Even if you have a car from back then, the software no longer uses them and they’ll just physically unplug them the next time you have the car serviced, as it’s just a drain on the battery at this point 🙃
meanwhile our subaru has lidar for adaptive cruise control and emergency braking
I didn’t realize EyeSight had different versions, on the Solterra it looks like it is indeed LIDAR.
My Crosstrek has the older dual camera setup for depth perception, it would not be fooled by a picture of a road on a wall… I’m surprised the Teslas are.
they’ll just physically unplug them the next time you have the car serviced
So, (looks at watch), in an hour?
So did they unplug it
Yikes.
Iirc they were using a combination of lidar and radar, but Elmo wanted to cut costs.
Funny thing is, the price of lidar is dropping like a stone; they are projected to be sub-$200 per unit soon. The technical consensus seems to be settling in on 2 or 3 lidars per car plus optical sensors, and Chinese EV brands are starting to provide self driving in baseline models, with lidars as part of the standard package.
Cameras and radar, I believe. Never lidar.
Ah okay. I was genuinely curious if I was remembering correctly because I definitely know it’s been awhile since I’d read anything on the subject.
Did he want to cut costs or did he want a network of cameras at his control all over the world?
Yes.
Yes, I recall at the time experts saying it was a terrible mistake and Elon saying Machine learning will bridge the gap.
The real reason was to increase margins.
Yes. He took too much inspiration from Stanford University’s “Stanley” winning the DARPA Grand Challenge in 2005. This was an early completion to build viable autonomous vehicles. Most of them looked like tanks covered in radar dishes but Stanford wound up taking home the gold with just an SUV with cameras on it.
It was an impressive achievement in computer vision, and the LiDAR-encrusted vehicles wound up looking like over-complex dinosaurs. There’s a great documentary about it narrated by John Lithgow (who, throughout it, pronounces the word robot as “ro-butt”). Elon watched it, made up his mind, and like a moron, hasn’t changed it in 20 years. I’m almost Musk’s age so I know how the years speed up as we go on. He probably thinks about the Stanford win as something that happened relatively recently. Especially with his mind on - ahem - other things, he’s not keeping up with recent developments out in the real world.
Rober just made Musk look like the absolute tool he is. And I’m a little worried that we may see people out there staging real world versions of this somehow with actual dangerous obstacles, not a cartoonish foam wall.
I did low-key get the squiggles before writing the article. I thought, from an ethical hacking disclosure-type perspective, that this info might cause folks to… well, ya know, paint tunnels on walls.
Then I looked, the cat was already out of the bag, the video had something like 5 million views on it in the 4 hours it took me to draft the article. So I shared it, but I definitely did have that thought cross my mind. I am also a little worried on that score.
I remember there being claims from him or his team about lidar being a dead end that would not scale as well as computer vision.
I believe he claimed that since humans use their vision to drive that computer vision was more than enough.
I don’t know about you, but I also rely on sounds & feel when I drive. I also know that the human eye has evolved to detect motion, filter out extraneous information, and send just the important bits to the brain so that it doesn’t get overloaded with everything the eye sees. Computer vision is the exact opposite from that, having to process every bit of every image the camera sees.
I also know of many times my vision fails. Driving into a sunrise for example
since humans use their vision to drive that computer vision was more than enough
Surprised he didn’t swap out the wheels with legs while he was at it
o p t i m u s
I don’t know about you, but I also rely on sounds & feel when I drive.
Of course. When I feel myself driving into a wall, I stop immediately.
You must connect with the road, every km or so stop and hug the asphalt.
Yep! That’s what I’m thinking of. It was Elmo. The real engineers objected.
Came here to actually write this. Everyone remembers that. He made Tesler the hated shit it is today.
As a space nut I seriously hope that he never gets a chance to do anything similar with SpaceX. Thankfully he’s mostly been kept away from important things thus far.
Don’t get me wrong, I know SpaceX’s closet is overflowing with skeletons. But since Congress has been so kind as to continuously cut NASA’s budget for the last few decades, I have to rely on SpaceX and other private companies to keep our space endeavors going.
I’m (was) huge SpaceX nerd, but last year or so I’m less and less. He always was dumb narcissist asshole, but now I can’t take it anymore. Also the idea that we’ve fucked up this planet and need to move somewhere else, by doing thousands of launches finishing this planet always made me sick. If someone would take him out, I probably would come back to liking the company.
To the famously already fucked planet Mars, no less.
Tesla never had LIDAR. That’s the little spinny thing you see on Waymo cars. They had RADAR, and yes it was removed in 2021 due to supply shortages and just…never reinstalled.
It was removed due to supply chain, but Musk did seem to legitimately think optical only was better.
Is that just to cover his ass cuz he was promising backwards-compatible FSD for models that don’t have LIDAR?
This would be hilarious if it weren’t for shitty cars causing deaths.
That said, I always wondered why we don’t find a system like RFID that could penetrate concrete and asphalt, and plant passive receivers in roads? We re-pave roads so damn often in this country (the U.S.) it seems like we could’ve knocked it out in the past couple of decades, minus our most rural areas.
I know RFID itself isn’t strong enough, but I imagine that would’ve been an easier problem than figuring our complete self driving. Not to mention making GPS a secondary system for U.S. road travel in most cases.
Maybe it’s just a dumb shower thought?
What you’re describing is just a higher level of autonomy. If I remember correctly, you’re describing level 3 whereas Tesla’s are level 2. I believe VW made a level 3 proof of concept mini bus back around 2020 but the legislation doesn’t allow for the sensors in the road yet because… Oh that’s right. A level 2 car manufacturer owns like half the world right now which means nobody is allowed to innovate or do better than him. Huh, that sucks.
I have another idea: echolocation and laser measurement.
Echolocation is specifically audio based.
Lidar is a similar technique, but much more accurate and precise.
Project a grid of laser beam, read when the laser bounces back, you know the distance to that part of the grid.I don’t know the value of echolocation in this case, as I’m generally ignorant here, but it’s straight wild to me that they went purely on visuals.
Apparently they keep getting tickets in China because they didn’t bother to adjust the settings to accommodate Chinese roads and traffic laws. Result is Tesla is getting utterly crushed by BYD in their one major market that doesn’t care about Elon’s antics.
Huh, now I’m mildly interested in the differences in traffic laws in China vs US vs Europe that lead to Teslas getting more tickets in China than elsewhere.
I found this article. My takeaways were:
- No driving in bus lanes during certain times of day.
- No using the shoulder as a turn lane.
- No using a bike lane as a turn lane.
Wow
(Basedbasedbasedbasedbasedbasedbased)
This post brought to you by American car centrism
Not sure what “American car centrism” has to do with Chinese traffic regulations tbh
I think their regs, while seemingly very basic rules of the road, are based because I live in the US and we have bike lanes here that just whole ass turn into turn lanes with almost no warning. I wish we could get basic decency for everyone on the road, too.
Ah, gotcha, yeah, that makes sense.
My own city has pretty good bike lane coverage, but it’s similar – cars have to cross over the bike lane to get into the turn lane.
Basic decency…gah. Yeah, I wish. :(
My vacuum would pass that test… why is a Tesla worse at this?
In short because Elon (wrongly) believes you only need cameras, he made the claim people also drive with just 2 eyes.
The thing is, we recognize a truck with stickers of a stopsign, while AI vision gets confused.
Waymo (Googles self driving side hussle) was build on lidar and other sensors and has been using robot taxis for many years now in geofenced specific areas.
The funny thing is, apparently our depth perception, a product of our two eyes, is a feature beyond the reach of tesla. And it would have allowed to to complete this test.
The thing is, we recognize a truck with stickers of a stopsign, while AI vision gets confused.
Lmao would it be illegal to put a stop sign on the back of your car?
Some school buses have a sticker / sign on the back that says “I stop for railroad crossings” and can have a stop sign on said sticker.
I was thinking the same thing. What would happen if you popped one out of the back of your car while driving in front of a self driving car on the freeway?
This
Insurance fraud is going to bankrupt Tesla robotaxis faster than an incompetent CEO ever could.
There will be too many ways to defeat the cameras and not having LiDAR unlike the rest of the industry may prove to be found to be a failure of duty of care.
Who was the idiot that removed LiDar to cut costs?
/s
Elon removed the radar. Tesla cars never had lidar. What an idiot Musk.
He did say lidar was “useless” though.
He’s said humans don’t use LiDAR so his cars shouldn’t have to. Of course humans have a brain, and he’s cars don’t, but you can’t tell him anything.
Human drivers also make automobiles one of the most dangerous ways to travel.
I think it’s also reasonable to say a human dying because of their own actions is different than a human dying because a big corp cut costs on safety features in an entirely autonomous car where the human has no ability to stop what’s happening. (You can control them in current teslas, but they’re working on cars without human controls as well)
Weymo have them beat then. They already have cars that essentially act like taxis and the only control the passenger has is an emergency stop button. But they don’t control the speed they don’t control the steering or anything.
But those systems absolutely do have lidar because in order for them to be widely accepted they don’t need to be a bit safer than humans they need to be a lot safer than humans.
Human drivers also make automobiles one of the most dangerous ways to travel.
Same goes for Teslas. Just that the human that’s making them a dangerous way to travel is Elon Musk.
He also said the government doesn’t use sql.
Bahaha, what kind of a bizarre statement is that?
Was he trying to imply the government only uses spreadsheets and nosql DBs?
Or did he think it was necessary to point out that your average government employee isn’t writing their own SQL to grab data they need?
Someone said something he didn’t like so he blurted out the first ignorant thing that he thought of, as usual.
Even then, that’s not really correct. People grab data through sql queries all the time. Mostly because all the front ends are trash.
Tesla had camera+radar+sonar, and that wasn’t their own tech - they used mobileye EyeQ back then. When they switched to in house tech they gradually ditched the radar and sonar which made no sense to me. But at the time I saw their lead say in an interview that this is superior and I believed. not anymore.
they said doing so cut costs but obviously lidar/radar/sonar only gets cheaper over time, let alone the extra r&d costs because a vision only system is much more difficult to develop.
It was removed because it was giving false positives. They should have upgraded it with lidar but decided to just remove it.
Yeah, it might drive straight into a wall but at least it isn’t returning false positives!
It was removed because of supply chain issues.
That would make sense if they put it back after, but they didn’t
They are so expensive too! /s
Who would have known electronics gets cheaper all the time?? /j
Except GPUs 😥
I just abandoned and got myself an RX 6400 (my kids stole my PCs). Works well for Commandos and C&C 😅
The actual wall is way more convincing though.
still, this should be something the car ought to take into account. What if there’s a glass in the way?
That might have been an even „simpler“ test.
Yes, but Styrofoam probably damages the car less than shards of glass.
Glass is far more likely to cause injuries to the driver or the people around the set, just from being heavier material than styrofoam.
Glass would be very interesting, might actually confuse lidar also.
Yes, I think a human driver who isn’t half asleep would notice that something is weird, and would at least slow down.
A camera will show it as being more convincing than it is. It would be way more obvious in real life when seen with two eyes. These kinds of murals are only convincing from one specific point.
…and clearly this photo wasn’t the point. In fact, it looks like a straight road from one of the camera angles he chooses later, not afaict from the pov of the car
That’s true, but it’s still way more understandable that a car without lidar would be fooled by it. And there is no way you would ever come into such a situation, whereas the image in the thumbnail, could actually happen. That’s why it’s so misleading, can people not see that?
I absolutely hate Elon Musk and support boycott of Tesla and Starlink, but this is a bit too misleading even with that in mind.So, your comment got me thinking… surely, in a big country like the US of A, this mural must actually exist already, right?
Of course it does. It is an art piece in Columbia, S.C: https://img.atlasobscura.com/90srIbBi-XX-H9u6i_RykKIinRXlpclCHtk-QPSHixk/rt:fit/w:1200/q:80/sm:1/scp:1/ar:1/aHR0cHM6Ly9hdGxh/cy1kZXYuczMuYW1h/em9uYXdzLmNvbS91/cGxvYWRzL3BsYWNl/X2ltYWdlcy85ZTUw/M2ZkZDAxZjVhN2Rm/NmVfOTIyNjQ4NjQ0/OF80YWVhNzFkZjY0/X3ouanBn.webp
A full article about it: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tunnelvision
How would Tesla FSD react to Tunnelvision, I wonder? How would Tesla FSD react to an overturned semi truck with a realistic depiction of a highway on it? JK, Tesla FSD crashes directly into overturned semis even without the image depiction issue.
I don’t think the test is misleading. It’s puffed up for entertainment purposes, but in being puffed up, it draws attention to an important drawback of optical-only self-driving cars, which is otherwise a difficult and arcane topic to draw everyday people’s attention to.
Good find, I must say I’m surprised that’s legal, but it’s probably more obvious in reality, and it has the sun which is probably also pretty obvious to a human.
But it might fool the Tesla?Regarding the semi video: WTF?
But I’ve said for years that Tesla cars aren’t safe for roads. And that’s not just the FSD, they are inherently unsafe in many really really stupid ways.
Blinker buttons on the steering wheel. Hidden emergency door handles, emergency breaking for no reason. Distracting screen interface. In Denmark 30% of Tesla 3 fail their first 4 year safety check.
There have been stats publicized that claim they aren’t worse than other cars, when in fact “other cars” were an average of 10 year older. So the newer cars obviously ought to be safer because they should be in better conditions.
As much as i want to hate on tesla, seeing this, it hardly seems like a fair test.
From the perspective of the car, it’s almost perfectly lined up with the background. it’s a very realistic painting, and any AI that is trained on image data would obviously struggle with this. AI doesn’t have that human component that allows us to infer information based on context. We can see the boarders and know that they dont fit. They shouldn’t be there, so even if the painting is perfectly lines up and looks photo realistic, we can know something is up because its got edges and a frame holding it up.
This test, in the context of the title of this article, relies on a fairly dumb pretense that:
- Computers think like humans
- This is a realistic situation that a human driver would find themselves in (or that realistic paintings of very specific roads exist in nature)
- There is no chance this could be trained out of them. (If it mattered enough to do so)
This doesnt just affect teslas. This affects any car that uses AI assistance for driving.
Having said all that… fuck elon musk and fuck his stupid cars.
This doesnt just affect teslas. This affects any car that uses AI assistance for driving.
Except for, you know… cars that don’t solely rely on optical input and have LiDAR for example
Fair point. But it doesn’t address the other things i said, really.
But i suppose,based on already getting downvoted, that I’ve got a bad take, either that or people who are downvoting me dont understand i can hate tesla and elon, think their cars are shit and still see that tests like this can be nuanced. The attitude that paints with a broad brush is the type of attitude that got trump elected…
No, it’s just a bad take. Every other manufacturer of self driving vehicles (even partial self driving, like automatic braking) uses LiDAR because it solves a whole host of problems like this. Only Tesla doesn’t, because Elon thinks he’s a big brain genius. There have been plenty of real world accidents with less cartoonish circumstances involving Teslas that also would have been avoided if they just had LiDAR sensors. Mark just chose an especially flashy way to illustrate the problem. Sometimes flashy is the best way to get a point across.
I agree the wall is convincing and that it’s not surprising that the Tesla didn’t detect it, but I think where your comment rubs the wrong way is that you seem to be letting Tesla off the hook for making a choice to use the wrong technology.
I think you and the article/video agree on the point that any car based only on images will struggle with this but the conclusion you drew is that it’s an unfair test while the conclusion should be that NO car should rely only on images.
Is this situation likely to happen in the real world? No. But that doesn’t make the test unfair to Tesla. This was an intentional choice they made and it’s absolutely fair to call them on dangers of that choice.
That’s fair.
I didn’t intend to give tesla a pass. I hoped that qualifying what i said with a “fuck tesla and fuck elon” would show that.
But i didn’t think about it that way.
In my defense my point was more about saying “what did you expect” the car to do in a test designed to show how a system that is not designed to perform a specific function cant perform that specific function.
We know that self driving is bullshit, especially the tesla brand of it. So what is Mark’s test and video really doing?
But on reflection, i guess there are still a lot of people out there that dont know this stuff, so at the very least, a popular channel like his will go a longway to raising awareness of this sort of flaw.
based on already getting downvoted
In this case, yes, but in general, downvotes just mean your take is unpopular. The downvotes could be from people who don’t like Tesla and see any defense of Tesla as worthy of downvotes.
So good on you for making the point that you believe in. It’s good to try to understand why something you wrote was downvoted instead of just knee-jerk assuming that it’s because it’s a “bad take.”
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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
Excuse me.
-
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.
-
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…
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.
I dodnt not read it because “reading bores me.” i didn’t read it because i was busy. I have people round digging up my driveway, i have a 7 week old baby and a 5 year old son destroying the house :p i have prep for work and i just did a bit of browsing and saw the post. Felt compelled to comment for a brief break.
Im not sure what you mean by “silly opinion.” Everyone who has been arguing with me has been stating that everyone knows that teslas dont use LiDAR, and thats why this test failed. If everyone knows this, then why did it need proving. It was a pointless test. Did you know: fire is hot and water is wet? Did you know we need to breathe air to live?
No?
Better make an elaborate test, film it, edit the video, make it last long enough to monetise, post it to youtube, and let people write articles about it to post to other websites. All to prove what everyone already knows about a dangerous self driving car that’s been around for 11 years…
I am sorry, i just dont get it. I felt like I was pointing out the obvious in saying that a test that’s tailored to give a specific result, which we already know the result of, is a farcical test. It’s pointless.
-
I agree that this just isn’t a realistic problem, and that there are way more problems with Tesla’s that are much more realistic.
Tell that to the guy who lost his head when his Tesla thought a reflective semi truck was the sky
I’m so glad I wasn’t the only person who immediately thought “This is some Wile E. Coyote shit.”
I mean, it is also referenced in the article and even in the summary from OP.
And extensively in the video too.
Make Elon test ride the first Tesla robotaxi and there’s a chance the funniest thing of all time will happen.
TaxiGate? I just hope he takes along four or five billionaire friends with him.
Some cartoon shit
This is a very good test, and the car should have past. That said though, I hate the click bait format where they show a stupidly obvious cartoonish wall, when the real wall is way more convincing.
The Video:
That sort of clickbait is 100% sure to get a “do not recommend channel” from me, I’m so sick of it. And it’s sad when the video has such a good point.
The Clickbait
I can see it’s kind of funny, but it’s misleading.
YouTubers - especially large channels like this - constantly A/B test with different thumbnails and stick with whatever one drives the most traffic (no pun intended) to the video.
You might not like it, but it’s unfortunately the reality of operating a content creation business on an algorithm-driven platform.
There are plenty of channels I follow that make fantastic videos, but sometimes you have to tolerate the shitty thumbnails because that’s just the reality of the system they’re operating within.
Yeah, that is just how youtube works. You as an individual can say you don’t like annoying thumbnails and titles, but they 100% work. And channels that don’t use them are just not getting as many viewers.
algorithm-driven platform
And what is this “algorithm” based on? Actual user behavior. So the way to correct an algorithm is to change actual user behavior, no?
Lemme know when they release an OTA for our parietal lobes.
That sounds horrifying. :)
Just don’t fall asleep during the update.
And what is this “algorithm” based on?
No one knows.
Actual user behavior. So the way to correct an algorithm is to change actual user behavior, no?
Definitely not. I pretty much exclusively get recommended garbage content, and 90% of it is already on the “trending” page. At least it was like 3 years ago before I stopped using any of YTs first-party front-ends.
I must say that the recommendation section on youtube for me is spot on! Though I spent years on youtube constantly liking and disliking content. But I think it learned me quite well.
When im tired of recommendations I move to subscriptions. And 5 hours just passed by…
Presumably, the “algorithm” is based on whatever is most profitable. So probably some combination of most viewers, best ad engagement (click through rate), and best conversion/appeal to Premium subs.
That’s assuming YouTube’s primary goal is to make money, and which it should be as part of a publicly traded company.
My point is that those thumbnails and titles work, so if we want something different, we need to reward better thumbnails and titles and stop engaging w/ poor ones.
Have you heard of DeArrow? https://dearrow.ajay.app/
It’s a browser extension that replaces clickbait thumbnails with good community sourced ones
Still supports a creator pulling clickbait.
The only way is to vote with views/retention.But it only supports them if their video is then also good. I don’t like clickbait, because I don’t want to be tricked into my monkey brain looking at something. I do want to see good videos.
Just yesterday the algorithm found some guy doing tech videos. I watched a few of them and then sent a text to a friend who I thought would like it. He asked for a link so I pulled the guys channel up on my phone, and holy smokes, clickbait. If I hadn’t seen the videos already I wouldn’t have given that guy the time of day. But they are well thought out, interesting videos.
I’m not here to correct the world’s poor behaviour. I’m here to watch good videos. De-arrow does a good job of that, it’s quite interesting to see YouTube on a computer without it vs what I’m used to now.
Blame the youtube algorithm and Mr Beast, not all the other youtubers caught up in the tidal wave.
Yeah they do it because it works. I’ve seen several who make otherwise good content talk about it in their videos and make comments about how stupid it is bit they basically have to to be competitive.
The only way is to vote with views/retention.
Want to guess why they are there in the first place?
I hate it too, but it’s mostly one of those “we can’t have nice things because of other people around us” situations.
I don’t see a problem with thumbnails that accurately portray the contents of the video, since only a small number of characters can fit in the title and a screenshot of one frame from the video doesn’t say much, so it can be difficult to get a sense for the video at a glance otherwise. I do get really annoyed with thumbnails that are deceptive in any way. If the thumbnail seems like it might be deceptive, I’ll usually read the comments before watching the video, or quickly scroll through it to see if it’s BS or not. Sometimes, the thumbnail advertises something that happens at the end of a 20 minute video that could’ve been 30s, in which case, I’ll scroll usually through to the end instead of watching the whole thing. If it weren’t for the thumbnail, though, I might not have watched it all.
yeah but if you share it with people, they’ll still see the clickbait thumbnail, and that’s the actual problem
Thanks no I hadn’t. Is that available as a Firefox extension. I do most of my browsing on desktop.
The link is right there, you could’ve just clicked it instead of taking the time to write this question?!
OK I see it now, a bunch of icons I usually glance over, because such “icon lines” are generally for a bunch of social media crap I don’t use.
Apparently it’s proprietary crap, so no thanks anyway.The link is in the comment you replied to.
How exactly were you not able to see that?Sorry, I mixed up 2 threads.
https://github.com/ajayyy/DeArrow
https://sponsor.ajay.app/databaseThis (again) is from the link in the comment you replied to…
Your attitude really doesn’t work well with your lack of reading comprehension.6 hour trial, sounds like proprietary to me.
Privacy Note: Other than intially checking your license key, no requests to DeArrow servers contain your license key.
Edit: I just read the entire text, and it is actually very reasonable, I just caught the license key thing together with the payment option. It’s actually even cheap, so maybe I’ll consider it.
You cannot be serious?! Are you trolling?
-
First of all, something not being free (as in gratis) does not mean it is proprietary per se.
-
Second of all, your reading comprehension failed you again:
However, if you cannot, or do not want to pay, you can click the button at the bottom to use DeArrow for free. No worries if you can’t or don’t want to pay :)
-
Yes, but you could have just clicked the link to find that out
The link in a comment that wasn’t for me? Like I update every 10 minutes to read all the comments??
Get real will you.The link you replied to.
Imagine being in the middle of a friendly conversation where you ask a question and the person says, “Why are you asking me?? Just google it.”
Well, this is a forum, not an out-loud discussion, so those are 2 completely different scenarios
They were also already given the link, so I guess:
Imagine being in the middle of a friendly conversation where someone asks for something, you give it to them, and then they proceed to ask questions about it that could be answered by looking at the thing you gave them
I give you a green round ball. You then proceed to ask me the colour and shape of the ball.
I’m not the OP, so I wasn’t having a conversation with them. But to me it gives off the vibe of “Random stranger, you should do all the work for me and provide all the answers, because I’m too lazy to do any of it myself.”
Could just be me though 🤷
You realize Mark Robers target audience is like 8 years old, right? He also references looney tunes and wile e coyote a couple dozen times, including in this thumbnail you’re losing your mind over. The thumbnail fits the theme very well if you ask me.
This video isn’t a rigorous scientific test. This is a children’s video designed to get them interested in the scientific method. Get over yourself.
IMO it doesn’t need to be a rigorous scientific test, it’s not trying to prove something works as it should under all conditions. It’s showing the exact opposite, it does not work under this one condition, which is more than enough to disprove the safety of the car.
More than one test failed.
The Tesla failed the heavy rain and the heavy fog tests.
There’s zero excuse to fail either of those tests. But the Tesla killed the kid both times.
The wall test was just to show that the Tesla cannot put together optical clues.
Why would children be interested in car safety?
My 6 year old kid loves anything about car and enjoyed Marks video. While driving him from school, he asked me why we can tell it’s a wall but the cars can’t. It sparked a 20 minutes discussion on car safety and why we need seat belts.
While driving him from school, he asked me why we can tell it’s a wall but the cars can’t.
Cool inquisitive kid you have there. 👍 😀
Who downvoted this? XD This brings me joy
Why would children be interested in anything?
Have you never seen educational content before that wraps up potentially boring teachings in an exciting narrative?
Since most grownups aren’t interested in safety, I just thought it would be even less for kids.
All sales promotion stats show that car buyers basically don’t care about safety features. Almost all significant safety features are there because of regulation.Edit:
I can only laugh at the downvoters, you know nothing. It’s been a well established fact that safety doesn’t sell cars since the 50’s.Seems like a strange application of stats when, as you say, the regulated safety features - the important ones - need not come into a decision-making process and advertising them would be a waste of time.
Stats made over decades back in 50-70’s
So… out of date stats about advertising?
Including the horrible angle of headrests these days. You’re right though: nobody gives a shit about the extra safety features.
Why is anyone interested in anything?
My nephew was obsessed with Teslas a few years ago. I asked him why, his response? The indicators can be set to make fart noises.
My 7 year old daughter and I watch Mark’s videos together and they have helped to spark her interest in engineering & science.
Oh wow, you really didn’t realize? Yeah man this is a youtube channel for getting kids interested in science and technology, like the technology surrounding self driving cars and lidar. Did you see the part where he introduced the technology by taking it to Disney world?
Here’s a random video from crunchlabs, the company he created and advertises on ALL of his videos. This video shows his fan base enjoying what they got from crunchlabs.
That’s cool then, but probably not for me. And I still think it’s misleading. If they made the analogy in the video it would be different. But as it is, it looks like clickbait. And honestly using clickbait on children is actually worse.
They do make the analogy in the video. They reference it multiple times.
Maybe I didn’t have sound, and that’s not the problem, the problem is the thumbnail for the video is clickbait, I don’t get why I have to repeat that so many times?
I understand the joke of the analogy to cartoons, and it’s perfectly fine they make that in the video.“And I still think it’s misleading. If they made the analogy in the video it would be different.”
I was just responding to your own point, mate. Good news, it is in the video multiple times, even visually referenced multiple times. They even described as a cartoonish test while showing the cartoon wall gag. So, per your own words, should be good to go then, yeah? I mean, you’re arguing with yourself at this point.
Because they don’t want their friend to die?
To kids, death is just a word.
When I was a kid I was extremely interested in junction layouts, it drove my parents mad. Kids like all sorts of random things.
Kids love cyber trucks, teslas, Ferraris, or any car that is perceived as very expensive
Still astounded people use anything other than the subscription section on YouTube.
History turned off, subscriptions only for me.
We are in a tiny, tiny minority.
That would require signing in and allowing tracking.
Most 3rd party clients support RSS subscriptions.
At this point everyone should know that YouTube thumbnails have no requirement for accuracy. It’s more like an album cover.
I know, but if they are about anything serious like tests, I think it’s a fair assumption that the thumbnail represent it reasonably.
If it’s misleading, I don’t want their vomit. They can just fuck right off. We already have more than enough misinformation. I simply don’t want to waste my time on bullshit.deleted by creator
Well if your thumbnail is not good enough and catchy people will not watch it. Which wont make the channel profitable. Which will cause it to not exist.
I hope you know that usually youtubers will not even start making the video if they don’t have a killer thumbnail to it. Thats the platform.
I disagree with this being a good test. Where on earth would you find a wall on a road with a fotorealistic continuation of the road printed on it? This would trick many human drivers. Self driving cars fail in many realistic situations that are a lot more concerning. This is just clickbait.
True, but Mark’s video basically about comparing Tesla’s Camera Sensors Vs Self Driving car with a Lidar Sensor.
They also simulated some real life scenarios which the car with Lidar sensors passed easily, while Tesla failed some of them.
So I guess Lidar sensors are superior compared to Teslas cameras.
Where on earth would you find a wall on a road with a fotorealistic continuation of the road printed on it?
Spoken like a man who has never relentlessly pursued a roadrunner, nor taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque.
You haven’t seen what Teslas are in the news for lately?
It’s not that crazy someone would put up a fake wall on some backroad to catch out inattentive Tesla drivers. Doesn’t even need to be nearly as big and elaborate as this one. Any painted object would accomplish the same.
But the point of the video is that optical cameras are easily deceived, and Elon is lying to his customers that LiDAR is overrated and not necessary.
Doesn’t address the point that humans would be equally deceived by this wall if they don’t pay 100% attention.
I’d hit that
With this paint job, in this environment? Maybe. Though IRL you would probably see it much clearer due to the lack of parallax effect on a 2D projection.
But if we’re talking e.g. about a dark-ish barrier at knee height, your brain does a much better job to quickly recognize it as obstacle. Whereas cameras without depth perception would fail completely.
This YT channel definitely went all out on the cartoonish nature of this particular test, but the article describes other tests as well including running over mannequins representing children that other cars (Lexus) avoided.
While I agree that this would trick many human drivers, I think the goal of a self-driving car is that it be better than human drivers. And there is existing tech that could help achieve that.
I actually agree, it’s not really a good test. That wall is very realistic. It’s just that people get pissed about negativity.
That’s more a product if the yt algorithm. For every one like you that is annoyed by the clickbait, there are a million others instantly clicking with no further thought. So if you don’t do that, you’re losing money.
Maybe, but it’s not because of me people get shitty links.
You shouldn’t judge a book by its cover.
If it’s made to be misleading and baiting, yes I FUCKING should. And so should you and everybody else.
How is it misleading?
The title asks “can you fool a self driving car” and the thumbnail illustrates a cartoon situation that immediately explains how they will attempt to do so in the video.
The video then goes on to not only answer the question, but explore the technology involved in-depth.
It MORE than delivers on the “clickbait”.
Thumbnails can’t be subtle, they typically get viewed at a tiny size compared to the full video and that’s why large high-contrast features work better than a random screencap from the video.
How is it misleading?
You can’t be serious? The clickbait image is not something that might actually possibly happen. The image in the video is.
That is a distinction without a difference.
They are both images depicting a drivable path, on a flat surface.
passed
I agree with everything you said.
Thanks. 😎
Then imagine why 15% downvote? I suppose it means they don’t see how it’s misleading?YouTube is always click bait nowadays. There are plenty of that aren’t and have good quality. But everyone I encounter that’s trying to breakout is sensational for the sake of being sensational.
But we OWNED AND SLAMMED Tesla!
But being dishonest about it, detract rather than add to it.
