5 ms·

The resolution of the camera has nothing to do with our ability to understand the road. I can drive reasonably well with just a camera feed of the road, but the

by adtac 7y ago

The resolution of the camera has nothing to do with our ability to understand the road. I can drive reasonably well with just a camera feed of the road, but the computer can't. So the bottleneck is in the image processing capability of the machine, not the quality of the camera.

ksaj 7y ago
Correct. You could follow a 1970's Atari green/black pixelated set of lines just as well. And optical illusions such as the Kanizsa Triangle demonstrate even that much info is more than ample, since your brain only needs the tiniest of hints to calculate shape and size in order to calculate direction. https://www.illusionsindex.org/i/kanizsa-triangle https://www.illusionsindex.org/i/kanizsa-triangle
- FroshKiller 7y ago
  Your comparison to a simple driving game might be misleading. A two-color game is probably an easier challenge, not a harder one, because the game developer has reduced your input to almost pure information rather than throwing a lot of visual data at you to interpret. In other words, it isn't that your eyes and brain are so good that you can still drive at an Atari level--it's that the Atari level is optimized for your eyes and brain.
  - ksaj 7y ago
    I agree to an extent, but it is a complex comparison to make, so it can easily look that way. Our brain creates a model of the surroundings based solely on memorized bits of the environment (allowing us to blink without the world going dark, and to track things in our peripheral views) plus prediction, which is something Atari exploits so we can convince ourselves the bars and dot have motion. We even temporarily convince ourselves that the blooping is the sound of impact. A long way to say that our sensors don't send complete objects like an OOP function would. Instead, they transmit just enough info (hints, maybe) to refresh the mental model. Similar to how we can see 4 dots and mentally translate it into a square laying in some particular direction in 3D space, even without lines or actually being 3D. The "bit" analogy breaks down when you consider this aspect. The data our brain works with isn't the same as the data a computer works with.

by adtac 7y ago

ksaj 7y ago

Correct. You could follow a 1970's Atari green/black pixelated set of lines just as well. And optical illusions such as the Kanizsa Triangle demonstrate even that much info is more than ample, since your brain only needs the tiniest of hints to calculate shape and size in order to calculate direction. https://www.illusionsindex.org/i/kanizsa-triangle https://www.illusionsindex.org/i/kanizsa-triangle

FroshKiller 7y ago
Your comparison to a simple driving game might be misleading. A two-color game is probably an easier challenge, not a harder one, because the game developer has reduced your input to almost pure information rather than throwing a lot of visual data at you to interpret. In other words, it isn't that your eyes and brain are so good that you can still drive at an Atari level--it's that the Atari level is optimized for your eyes and brain.
- ksaj 7y ago
  I agree to an extent, but it is a complex comparison to make, so it can easily look that way. Our brain creates a model of the surroundings based solely on memorized bits of the environment (allowing us to blink without the world going dark, and to track things in our peripheral views) plus prediction, which is something Atari exploits so we can convince ourselves the bars and dot have motion. We even temporarily convince ourselves that the blooping is the sound of impact. A long way to say that our sensors don't send complete objects like an OOP function would. Instead, they transmit just enough info (hints, maybe) to refresh the mental model. Similar to how we can see 4 dots and mentally translate it into a square laying in some particular direction in 3D space, even without lines or actually being 3D. The "bit" analogy breaks down when you consider this aspect. The data our brain works with isn't the same as the data a computer works with.