4 ms·

I somehow agree with Musk that a self driving car should be able to work with only cameras, as humans do with their eyes. If there are 2 cameras, depth can be

I somehow agree with Musk that a self driving car should be able to work with only cameras, as humans do with their eyes. If there are 2 cameras, depth can be calculated ( eg. 2 eyes) and Tesla is in the best position to achieve this ( lots of data). Additional sensors make the system way more complex and most of them have the same issue: it doesn't work in the worst weather conditions. They should however greatly check why the system failed and how they can improve depth vision with their cameras. The failing of the system in broad daylight is a severe issue/fault. And I'm sure they will improve this. Until full auto pilot, which is still a long way to go, the AutoPilot is driver assistance and driver's should be aware.

fctorial 6y ago
if (car.aboutToCrash()) { car.stop() }
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  If there is someone behind them, it would be better to try drive around the obstacle.
rainyMammoth 6y ago
Interesting argument. Why doesn't a plane fly like a bird? Why don't we have submarines that swim like fishes? (for the sake of clarity, yes I'm being sarcastic to demonstrate how stupid that argument is. Humans have eyes but also got a brain that is way more powerful than any AI that we have today)
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  Because the technology isn't/wasn't there and is "good enough" as it is. But it doesn't compare to the efficiency of millions of years of evolution. Eg. Feathers for flying + flexible bone structure and absorbing skin for water pressure. I will react with the question: although we can dive and fly. Wouldn't it be better, if we adapt to nature's evolution? Eg. Put on a feather- suit, jump start the engine to get off the ground and then float to the destination and only let the engine kick in when we need to go higher/land? Riding on earth's natural wind and sparing fuel resources ( going off topic here) On topic: ML/AI should be able to datafy all related information that human eyes perceive. And those datapoints need to be handled by every situation that occurs. The article clearly shows that this is not the case yet. While a brain has more adaptability, Tesla should be able to counteract this with more data of the vehicles that drive around.
- arcticfox 6y ago
  > yes I'm being sarcastic to demonstrate how stupid that argument is What is stupid about the argument as it was framed? It should be possible to drive autonomously with only cameras. It may or may not be possible with our current AI and techniques. It also may or may not be much easier to pull off with LIDAR et al. IMO the jury is still out and will be for a while. Remember that humans always seem vastly superior to AIs until all of a sudden they're vastly inferior.
  - NicoJuicy 6y ago
    Musk is planning for a solution that drives as good as the best driver in bad weather. Adding LIDAR and other solutions, is currently bullshit. I don't think there is proven hardware to see past extreme bad weather. But that is not what Tesla is doing. They want their solution to work in conditions where humans can drive ( eg. Heavy snow, but not a snow storm that blocks every sight)
m3kw9 6y ago
Maybe to achieve better than human ability you may need more than multiple eyes all around a car. But I do see that fully autonomous driving can be achieved with only visual cameras
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  Last time I checked, additional sensors on the market all had problems with bad weather conditions. Based on that, in the end you still need the camera's to work 100% to achieve the same things as humans do. So you are solving more problems than you require too. It's nuts that people don't see that simple correlation. Ps. You mentioned better than humans, but that is not the use-case Tesla is solving and the use-case I'm "discussing".
quicklime 6y ago
I think you might be right, but is the problem here really a lack of depth perception? Even a single camera is enough to show you a rapidly-growing rectangle in your field of view. This seems similar to a different fatal Tesla crash in 2016, where the system for some reason couldn't detect a white truck against a bright sky. Maybe what they need is better dynamic range in their camera(s)?
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  They already have IR extra, but I think this was a severe error in the system and it probably won't be there last. I can't know what was wrong with this situation though. It's all about tweaking the AI and camera's. I hope they don't need to replace the camera's for additional hardware features ( hdr, tilt the camera, .. ) but it's still a camera. Even if it lacks a feature or not.
rsynnott 6y ago
The issue isn’t depth perception (someone with no functional depth perception can drive!) so much as a lack of, for want of a better term, common sense. AI is a bit of a misnomer; these cars are obviously not sentient, and don’t have the same abilities as a human. If self-driving cars are possible at all with current/near future tech (I’m dubious personally), they won’t be solely dependent on cameras.
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  Why not? Humans can drive in less than optimal situations with 2 eyes as sensors. If the goal is to have a solution that can drive in the same situations as a human. What sensor is missing then and why? Ps. My statement questions mostly LIDAR as additional sensor, I'm not sure if AI/ML is good enough yet too, but we'll c. I'm pretty sure Lidar isn't as important as many people think it is. And for all Musk's "his faults", you can't deny he is correct on a lot of cases. Almost everyone questions the Lidar decision, but loses sight of the most simple question. What's missing with only cameras, if humans can do it?
  - jfk13 6y ago
    > What's missing with only cameras, if humans can do it? Intelligence.
    - NicoJuicy 6y ago
      > What sensor is missing then and why? But the discussion at hand is about LIDAR/sensors. Please read the entire comment... Not about if "AI is capable enough currently"
  - ghaff 6y ago
    >What's missing with only cameras, if humans can do it? A human brain? The debates about LIDAR etc. aren't that they're needed to pilot cars effectively on roads in the abstract but that they may be needed in the absence of a high level AGI to reach acceptable levels of functionality. And they may not be enough of course.

fctorial 6y ago

if (car.aboutToCrash()) { car.stop() }

NicoJuicy 6y ago
If there is someone behind them, it would be better to try drive around the obstacle.

rainyMammoth 6y ago

Interesting argument. Why doesn't a plane fly like a bird? Why don't we have submarines that swim like fishes? (for the sake of clarity, yes I'm being sarcastic to demonstrate how stupid that argument is. Humans have eyes but also got a brain that is way more powerful than any AI that we have today)

NicoJuicy 6y ago
Because the technology isn't/wasn't there and is "good enough" as it is. But it doesn't compare to the efficiency of millions of years of evolution. Eg. Feathers for flying + flexible bone structure and absorbing skin for water pressure. I will react with the question: although we can dive and fly. Wouldn't it be better, if we adapt to nature's evolution? Eg. Put on a feather- suit, jump start the engine to get off the ground and then float to the destination and only let the engine kick in when we need to go higher/land? Riding on earth's natural wind and sparing fuel resources ( going off topic here) On topic: ML/AI should be able to datafy all related information that human eyes perceive. And those datapoints need to be handled by every situation that occurs. The article clearly shows that this is not the case yet. While a brain has more adaptability, Tesla should be able to counteract this with more data of the vehicles that drive around.
arcticfox 6y ago
> yes I'm being sarcastic to demonstrate how stupid that argument is What is stupid about the argument as it was framed? It should be possible to drive autonomously with only cameras. It may or may not be possible with our current AI and techniques. It also may or may not be much easier to pull off with LIDAR et al. IMO the jury is still out and will be for a while. Remember that humans always seem vastly superior to AIs until all of a sudden they're vastly inferior.
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  Musk is planning for a solution that drives as good as the best driver in bad weather. Adding LIDAR and other solutions, is currently bullshit. I don't think there is proven hardware to see past extreme bad weather. But that is not what Tesla is doing. They want their solution to work in conditions where humans can drive ( eg. Heavy snow, but not a snow storm that blocks every sight)

m3kw9 6y ago

Maybe to achieve better than human ability you may need more than multiple eyes all around a car. But I do see that fully autonomous driving can be achieved with only visual cameras

NicoJuicy 6y ago
Last time I checked, additional sensors on the market all had problems with bad weather conditions. Based on that, in the end you still need the camera's to work 100% to achieve the same things as humans do. So you are solving more problems than you require too. It's nuts that people don't see that simple correlation. Ps. You mentioned better than humans, but that is not the use-case Tesla is solving and the use-case I'm "discussing".

quicklime 6y ago

I think you might be right, but is the problem here really a lack of depth perception? Even a single camera is enough to show you a rapidly-growing rectangle in your field of view. This seems similar to a different fatal Tesla crash in 2016, where the system for some reason couldn't detect a white truck against a bright sky. Maybe what they need is better dynamic range in their camera(s)?

NicoJuicy 6y ago
They already have IR extra, but I think this was a severe error in the system and it probably won't be there last. I can't know what was wrong with this situation though. It's all about tweaking the AI and camera's. I hope they don't need to replace the camera's for additional hardware features ( hdr, tilt the camera, .. ) but it's still a camera. Even if it lacks a feature or not.

rsynnott 6y ago

The issue isn’t depth perception (someone with no functional depth perception can drive!) so much as a lack of, for want of a better term, common sense. AI is a bit of a misnomer; these cars are obviously not sentient, and don’t have the same abilities as a human. If self-driving cars are possible at all with current/near future tech (I’m dubious personally), they won’t be solely dependent on cameras.

NicoJuicy 6y ago
Why not? Humans can drive in less than optimal situations with 2 eyes as sensors. If the goal is to have a solution that can drive in the same situations as a human. What sensor is missing then and why? Ps. My statement questions mostly LIDAR as additional sensor, I'm not sure if AI/ML is good enough yet too, but we'll c. I'm pretty sure Lidar isn't as important as many people think it is. And for all Musk's "his faults", you can't deny he is correct on a lot of cases. Almost everyone questions the Lidar decision, but loses sight of the most simple question. What's missing with only cameras, if humans can do it?
- jfk13 6y ago
  > What's missing with only cameras, if humans can do it? Intelligence.
  - NicoJuicy 6y ago
    > What sensor is missing then and why? But the discussion at hand is about LIDAR/sensors. Please read the entire comment... Not about if "AI is capable enough currently"
- ghaff 6y ago
  >What's missing with only cameras, if humans can do it? A human brain? The debates about LIDAR etc. aren't that they're needed to pilot cars effectively on roads in the abstract but that they may be needed in the absence of a high level AGI to reach acceptable levels of functionality. And they may not be enough of course.