4 ms·
Yeah. I'm saying there are plenty of companies capable of this particular technical feat given the offline HD mapping + Lidar, so it doesn't justify the amount
by vladislav 8y ago
Yeah. I'm saying there are plenty of companies capable of this particular technical feat given the offline HD mapping + Lidar, so it doesn't justify the amount invested in and valuation of Zoox. This technology was available years ago. If say, they did this with vision only and no HD maps, maybe then I'd be impressed.
- vasilipupkin 8y agoI call bullshit on this assertion. Plenty of companies? You mean like 3 ? also, why does it have to be vision only and no maps? the goal is not some pissing contest of who has the cleverest algo, the goal is a working product. Of course, it's going to include maps.
- vladislav 8y agoWay more than 3 companies. The reason I'd want to see a vision-only mappless demo is because Lidar and HD maps are a crutch, which make it easy to create a 90% functional demo, yet are insufficient to cover the long tail end, which is inherently a computer vision problem. There is not enough information density or semantics in Lidar data to make high level judgements, which makes it useless for many relevant corner cases. Meanwhile, vision has all the information but it's a hard yet necessary AI problem to extract it. The goal is a working product indeed, but if it involves teleoperation, human annotation for maps, and over-relies on Lidar, it will be a slow and unreliable AI granny driver, which will penetrate at most 1% of the market. There is a whole lot of unscalable human effort being swept under the rug in most autonomous demos, so don't believe everything you read in the media.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]