4 ms·

WOuldn't that logic suggest that self-driving tech dependent only on image recognition has a hard-limit at around the human driving expertise-level? If we truly

WOuldn't that logic suggest that self-driving tech dependent only on image recognition has a hard-limit at around the human driving expertise-level? If we truly want super-human driving skills (as everyone seems to expect from future cars), wouldn't that mandate a richer and better quality of data?

versusqc 9y ago
no, logic says that image recognition is sufficient for human driving expertise-level, but doesn't say anything it being the limit...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Loopsnut 9y ago
They have richer and better quality of data already. The cameras never look at their phones and are looking 360 degrees around the car at all times.
dzdt 9y ago
Computers have advantages in attention span, (lack of) fatigue, and reaction time. Potentially their performance could well surpass humans even without superior sensor abilities.
dpark 9y ago
Not really. Dogs have roughly the same visual capacity as humans but are really shitty drivers nonetheless. Visual acuity doesn't necessarily correlate tightly with driving ability. It's possible that human-level driving is as good as it can get with just optical vision, but there's no evidence to support that. There may be vast untapped potential from pure optical vision. Honestly, if we just got self-driving cars as good as non-distracted, expert human drivers, they'd already look super-human compared to the average human. Still, it's very likely that we can improve faster with better sensors.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jsjohnst 9y ago
  > Dogs have roughly the same visual capacity as humans While I more or less agree with the rest of your post, source needed on the quoted part. From everything I’ve read on the topic, there is significant differences in dog perception over humans (FoV, depth perception, motion detection, flicker fusion, etc).
  - dpark 9y ago
    Hence roughly. (Call it order of magnitude.) The primary limitation on dogs' driving ability is not their vision.
    - jsjohnst 9y ago
      > The primary limitation on dogs' driving ability is not their vision. Actually, I’d argue that it is, but maybe my definition of “vision” is overly pedantic. Vision is to seeing as listening is to hearing for me.
smileysteve 9y ago
> image recognition has a hard-limit If you limit image recognition to fixed binaural vision at a PD ~70; sure. But cars can have more cameras, better infrared sensing, multiple exposure sensing, better field of view, quicker/better rotating ability and be couple more tightly with car speed to make more accurate predictions, adjustable known zoom. So, if the human driving level were Deadshot + Jason Bourne + the Exorcist + Riddick + American Sniper + the Mentalist + Ghandi.

versusqc 9y ago

no, logic says that image recognition is sufficient for human driving expertise-level, but doesn't say anything it being the limit...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Loopsnut 9y ago

They have richer and better quality of data already. The cameras never look at their phones and are looking 360 degrees around the car at all times.

dzdt 9y ago

Computers have advantages in attention span, (lack of) fatigue, and reaction time. Potentially their performance could well surpass humans even without superior sensor abilities.

dpark 9y ago

Not really. Dogs have roughly the same visual capacity as humans but are really shitty drivers nonetheless. Visual acuity doesn't necessarily correlate tightly with driving ability. It's possible that human-level driving is as good as it can get with just optical vision, but there's no evidence to support that. There may be vast untapped potential from pure optical vision. Honestly, if we just got self-driving cars as good as non-distracted, expert human drivers, they'd already look super-human compared to the average human. Still, it's very likely that we can improve faster with better sensors.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jsjohnst 9y ago
> Dogs have roughly the same visual capacity as humans While I more or less agree with the rest of your post, source needed on the quoted part. From everything I’ve read on the topic, there is significant differences in dog perception over humans (FoV, depth perception, motion detection, flicker fusion, etc).
- dpark 9y ago
  Hence roughly. (Call it order of magnitude.) The primary limitation on dogs' driving ability is not their vision.
  - jsjohnst 9y ago
    > The primary limitation on dogs' driving ability is not their vision. Actually, I’d argue that it is, but maybe my definition of “vision” is overly pedantic. Vision is to seeing as listening is to hearing for me.

smileysteve 9y ago

> image recognition has a hard-limit If you limit image recognition to fixed binaural vision at a PD ~70; sure. But cars can have more cameras, better infrared sensing, multiple exposure sensing, better field of view, quicker/better rotating ability and be couple more tightly with car speed to make more accurate predictions, adjustable known zoom. So, if the human driving level were Deadshot + Jason Bourne + the Exorcist + Riddick + American Sniper + the Mentalist + Ghandi.