3 ms·

It's true, but it ignores the fact that human eyes have orders of magnitude more dynamic range than even very expensive specialized cameras, and it obviously ig

It's true, but it ignores the fact that human eyes have orders of magnitude more dynamic range than even very expensive specialized cameras, and it obviously ignores the fact that we haven't invented general AI yet. It's a pithy response that undermines the challenge of a problem nobody has been able to solve even with years of effort and billions of dollars.

qchris 7y ago
I agree that human eyes do have benefits over your typical camera, but I don't think the phrase ignores that GAI hasn't been created yet; rather, it concisely points that out and makes it clear how difficult it is to do. As the OP said, "it's not a hardware problem," in that the quality or number of cameras, sensors, etc. isn't the bottleneck to solving this problem.
aphextron 7y ago
>It's true, but it ignores the fact that human eyes have orders of magnitude more dynamic range than even very expensive specialized cameras, and it obviously ignores the fact that we haven't invented general AI yet. That level of resolution doesn't matter at all for driving. People can drive just as well through a video feed, like Starsky was doing. Yes general AI does not exist yet, but my point is simply that the parent made a comment about the need for hardware which is simply not true.
- MegaButts 7y ago
  > That level of resolution doesn't matter at all for driving. People can drive just as well through a video feed, like Starsky was doing. I can tell you from experience this is false. It usually works, but when it doesn't you're fucked. People wildly underestimate, by orders of magnitude, how many and how complicated the edge-cases are for self-driving.
llsf 7y ago
My husband is an optometrist. There are lots of people who are driving with poor vision. We do not need (although it is obviously better) perfect vision to drive a vehicle. We can drive in fog or heavy rain, with limited vision. I am not sure that image quality is a big factor here. But we do have a good spacial sense (distance) + object recognition (mass/speed) + psychology/habits. I can tell at glance if an object is able/supposed to move, and adjust (i.e. watch/sample it for few more milliseconds) to estimate it current speed. I estimate its mass and deduce inertia (can it stop if need to). I make eye contact with driver, to acknowledge that he saw me, etc. Not saying that those things cannot be learnt and used by a software. I do agree that we do well with just two cameras, and we make up for it. BTW, from our senses, one that I rarely see mentioned is the hearing (used to label and spatially locate). I do use it while driving (e.g. motorbike approaching, but not seeing it yet, or emergency vehicle).

qchris 7y ago

I agree that human eyes do have benefits over your typical camera, but I don't think the phrase ignores that GAI hasn't been created yet; rather, it concisely points that out and makes it clear how difficult it is to do. As the OP said, "it's not a hardware problem," in that the quality or number of cameras, sensors, etc. isn't the bottleneck to solving this problem.

aphextron 7y ago

>It's true, but it ignores the fact that human eyes have orders of magnitude more dynamic range than even very expensive specialized cameras, and it obviously ignores the fact that we haven't invented general AI yet. That level of resolution doesn't matter at all for driving. People can drive just as well through a video feed, like Starsky was doing. Yes general AI does not exist yet, but my point is simply that the parent made a comment about the need for hardware which is simply not true.

MegaButts 7y ago
> That level of resolution doesn't matter at all for driving. People can drive just as well through a video feed, like Starsky was doing. I can tell you from experience this is false. It usually works, but when it doesn't you're fucked. People wildly underestimate, by orders of magnitude, how many and how complicated the edge-cases are for self-driving.

llsf 7y ago

My husband is an optometrist. There are lots of people who are driving with poor vision. We do not need (although it is obviously better) perfect vision to drive a vehicle. We can drive in fog or heavy rain, with limited vision. I am not sure that image quality is a big factor here. But we do have a good spacial sense (distance) + object recognition (mass/speed) + psychology/habits. I can tell at glance if an object is able/supposed to move, and adjust (i.e. watch/sample it for few more milliseconds) to estimate it current speed. I estimate its mass and deduce inertia (can it stop if need to). I make eye contact with driver, to acknowledge that he saw me, etc. Not saying that those things cannot be learnt and used by a software. I do agree that we do well with just two cameras, and we make up for it. BTW, from our senses, one that I rarely see mentioned is the hearing (used to label and spatially locate). I do use it while driving (e.g. motorbike approaching, but not seeing it yet, or emergency vehicle).