3 ms·
Doesn't this just suggest that computer vision is practically impossible to perfect, and that cameras + LIDAR would be far better for safely driving a car? You
by TillE 9y ago
Doesn't this just suggest that computer vision is practically impossible to perfect, and that cameras + LIDAR would be far better for safely driving a car? You need actual distances to objects, not just fuzzy error-prone inferences.
- rocqua 9y agoThe obvious counter-example are humans. On a more realistic level, stereoscopic vision seems like a pretty decent way to get distances.
- legolas2412 9y agoYour obvious counter example might need General Intelligence.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Animats 9y agoVolvo self-driving cars have multiple LIDARs and radars, in addition to vision.
- sandworm101 9y ago>> You need actual distances to objects, not just fuzzy error-prone inferences. Humans do pretty good with fuzzy notions of where the animal is. Exact distances aren't needed so much as reasonable estimates. If it is probably in the "need to brake zone" then the car brakes. Plus or minus a few meters isn't a big deal so long as you've got margins to work with. As animals are unpredictable, Volvo certainly has wide margins.
- lanstin 9y agoPlus if there is anything the human vision system is optimized for it would be seeing and assessing an unknown large mammal.
- mewse 9y agoHistory (and personal experience) shows pretty clearly that humans are really bad at predicting the movements of kangaroos, though. (I've never been in a car that hit one, but have had some close calls) The things seem to be able to effortlessly execute 90 degree turns between hops, at speed. Safety lesson: if you see kangaroos travelling alongside the road you're driving on, slow way down so you can execute an emergency stop, if needed; they're always only one hop from suddenly being right in front of you. Safety lesson 2: there is always another kangaroo. If you see a kangaroo bound across the road ahead of you, slow way down; there's likely to be another kangaroo a very short distance behind it. (And safety lesson 2 recurses and also applies to that second kangaroo; there is likely a third kangaroo just far enough behind it that you'll think there's no third kangaroo. And so on.)
- chris_wot 9y agoAnother is - don't let your dogs near a kangaroo around a body of water. The kangaroo hops into the water, the dog follows and the kangaroo holds it under and drowns it.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- skybrian 9y agoBut apparently humans get confused by kangaroos too, based on the number of collisions.
- cptn_brittish 9y agoIt's not confusion as other Australians here have said they really do not behave like any other animal and appear out of no where at speed. A actual collision with one normally takes out the car and not just the kangaroo as well.
- sdwisely 9y agoThey're hard to see because of their coat, move quickly and erratically and they're pretty much all muscle. I'm not surprised they get hit as often as they do particularly at night.
- mikeash 9y agoThis stuff is still early days. I don't see how a problem encountered with a research project could possibly indicate that the whole problem is "practically impossible." It would be weird if they didn't have problems like this while building the technology.