5 ms·
I'm kind of worried by the fact that the system judges depth based on visual cues (like a human with one eye closed does) instead of actual depth sensing hardwa
by ClassyJacket 9y ago
I'm kind of worried by the fact that the system judges depth based on visual cues (like a human with one eye closed does) instead of actual depth sensing hardware, to the point that the system needs to recognise kangaroos specifically.
Shouldn't the car stop for any obstacle, even ones it doesn't recognise? They surely can't expect to train it on every possible type of debris.
- kalleboo 9y agoIt doesn't sound like the problem is it's detecting specific animals, but in how it's detecting the distance -using the ground as a reference for things that aren't standing on the ground. I wonder how it it handles low-flying birds.
- amag 9y agoWhen I learned t drive I was instructed not to mind smaller critters as the avoidance maneuver (steering away one way or the other or heavy breaking) is more likely to cause a serious accident than the collision with the small critter.
- kalleboo 9y agoTrue. You also don't want it avoiding a plastic bag that's floating across the road
- lb1lf 9y agoUnless, of course, you are the small critter. (When in driving school, I was taught to ignore anything smaller than a reindeer - but assure whoever showed up in distress after I'd put a set of tire marks over their pet's back that I'd tried my best to avoid it.)
- mac01021 9y agoYou needn't swerve but there's no harm in braking.
- chielk 9y agoA risk would be a car suddenly braking for leaves or a plastic bag crossing the road.
- PudgePacket 9y agoWhat about a plastic sheet obscuring a kangaroo/animal ?
- BurningFrog 9y agoHave you considered a career in QA?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]