3 ms·

You can read the article, and see the video yourself, and the answer is no: Tesla couldn't manage reliable detection of "big object blocking the way".

serf 6y ago
yeah, but Tesla being unable to do it doesn't mean that someone can't. It's a hard problem, but a system with more sensory inputs than the human optical system shouldn't solve the same problem worse -- this points to a real issue in the problem solving methodology, but doesn't do much to condemn the idea of camera/radar fusion. Now, if the question was "Can Tesla do this reliably?" -- different answer.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  The human system includes the human brain, which is an important part. We can easily make optical sensors that have better visual acuity than the human eye, but "scene understanding" continues to be a task where humans dramatically beat computers. The brain is an important part of this.
- salawat 6y ago
  It's perfectly reasonable for a system with more sensory inputs than a human to fail at a task a human does with just the one. Do you think the car understands cause and effect? Do you think the car actually groks object persistence? Do you think that the car has any sense of value attached to it's own existence? Or an instinct to increase the amount of time it has to resolve a reading it doesn't understand? This is the failing of your lab trained neural network. It is only trained and proficient in what it knows, and only that. It doesn't have a sense of self. It doesn't have intuition, instinct for survival, or any of the millions of other simultaneous neural subprocesses that even the simplest biological creatures possess to keep themselves alive. It can't forget, neither can it learn in it's runtime state. It's a crapshoot whether it'll do everything it is supposed to how it is supposed to just like it is when a human (coincidently, another neural network driven creature) gets behind the wheel. You won't build a perfect neural network for X just like you can't make a perfect human by selective lobotomy. There is only so much neural ductility that can be accommodated.
- AareyBaba 6y ago
  This is what symbolic AI skeptics in the 90's dismissed as 'brittle' solutions. You engineer an AI system, then find it fails under some unforeseen situation. You fix for that situation and find it fails under some other unforeseen situation. I was driving on the highway the other day and there was a large black object ahead in my lane. I was about to take evasive action when the object shifted slightly. The motion was enough for my brain to sense it was a lightweight object (not a human fallen on the road) and a further movement in a puff of wind to establish it was an empty garbage bag rolling on the highway. No need for evasive action. On the other hand if I had seen other debris/leaves tumbling in the wind but the black object was stationary my brain would have sensed it as a potentially heavy object and taken evasive action. I remain skeptical that we can if-then-else engineer our way to self-driving until cars have the common sense adaptive behavior that humans have.
- reitzensteinm 6y ago
  There's no question we'll get there eventually. But what's the timeline? The first principles argument can be made just as well about setting up two cameras and some robotic hands to converse on HN and acquire karma.
aquadrop 6y ago
I read the article and saw the video. I'm answering to the comment talking about the general problems of the approach.

serf 6y ago

yeah, but Tesla being unable to do it doesn't mean that someone can't. It's a hard problem, but a system with more sensory inputs than the human optical system shouldn't solve the same problem worse -- this points to a real issue in the problem solving methodology, but doesn't do much to condemn the idea of camera/radar fusion. Now, if the question was "Can Tesla do this reliably?" -- different answer.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago
The human system includes the human brain, which is an important part. We can easily make optical sensors that have better visual acuity than the human eye, but "scene understanding" continues to be a task where humans dramatically beat computers. The brain is an important part of this.
salawat 6y ago
It's perfectly reasonable for a system with more sensory inputs than a human to fail at a task a human does with just the one. Do you think the car understands cause and effect? Do you think the car actually groks object persistence? Do you think that the car has any sense of value attached to it's own existence? Or an instinct to increase the amount of time it has to resolve a reading it doesn't understand? This is the failing of your lab trained neural network. It is only trained and proficient in what it knows, and only that. It doesn't have a sense of self. It doesn't have intuition, instinct for survival, or any of the millions of other simultaneous neural subprocesses that even the simplest biological creatures possess to keep themselves alive. It can't forget, neither can it learn in it's runtime state. It's a crapshoot whether it'll do everything it is supposed to how it is supposed to just like it is when a human (coincidently, another neural network driven creature) gets behind the wheel. You won't build a perfect neural network for X just like you can't make a perfect human by selective lobotomy. There is only so much neural ductility that can be accommodated.
AareyBaba 6y ago
This is what symbolic AI skeptics in the 90's dismissed as 'brittle' solutions. You engineer an AI system, then find it fails under some unforeseen situation. You fix for that situation and find it fails under some other unforeseen situation. I was driving on the highway the other day and there was a large black object ahead in my lane. I was about to take evasive action when the object shifted slightly. The motion was enough for my brain to sense it was a lightweight object (not a human fallen on the road) and a further movement in a puff of wind to establish it was an empty garbage bag rolling on the highway. No need for evasive action. On the other hand if I had seen other debris/leaves tumbling in the wind but the black object was stationary my brain would have sensed it as a potentially heavy object and taken evasive action. I remain skeptical that we can if-then-else engineer our way to self-driving until cars have the common sense adaptive behavior that humans have.
reitzensteinm 6y ago
There's no question we'll get there eventually. But what's the timeline? The first principles argument can be made just as well about setting up two cameras and some robotic hands to converse on HN and acquire karma.

aquadrop 6y ago

I read the article and saw the video. I'm answering to the comment talking about the general problems of the approach.