3 ms·
It's a question of reliability. When you market an 'autopilot' that periodically crashes into stationary vehicles, you are probably fine using just a camera. If
by 05 10y ago
It's a question of reliability. When you market an 'autopilot' that periodically crashes into stationary vehicles, you are probably fine using just a camera. If you, on the other hand, are Google, and want to provide an actual hands-off Level 4 self-driving car, well.. you need an actual 3D point cloud and not just some neural network's educated guess about what the distance is.
- ajross 10y ago> not just some neural network's educated guess about what the distance is But that's precisely the mechanism that's been working and accepted since the invention of the directed machine... (Also, just to clarify: a stereoscopic distance determination isn't meaningfully a "guess". That's been a solved problem for a long time.) The goal can't ever be perfect safety. The machines themselves aren't perfectly safe even if they aren't driven into anything. It just has to be measurably safer than a human driver.
- petra 10y agoIt's easier to certify a lidar depth map and prove it's reliability, than a complex algorithm that builds depth maps from camera, under all lighting conditions . And in any case , sensor fusion seems to be a common approach, so we'll probably need both lida and cameras.
- dmd 10y agoWell, of course the goal is perfect safety. Whether it's reasonable or desirable to reach that goal is another matter - it's a tradeoff of resources.
- baq 10y ago> not just some neural network's educated guess about what the distance is. so, ban humans from driving?