3 ms·
I think this is the right approach. However one big problem with deploying systems using this approach today is that it happens to be very hard to do this with
by zamfi 6y ago
I think this is the right approach.
However one big problem with deploying systems using this approach today is that it happens to be very hard to do this with enough nines that your car isn't slowing down or emergency braking for spurious inputs. Floating plastic bag / leaf - trash on the road - asphalt line that looks wrong - camera glare - a puddle with a reflection - giant sticker of a photo of a traffic cone - etc. etc. etc. State of the art would probably be undriveably cautious today.
Most things that don't look like road, between lane markers on a highway, are still drivable space. Probably 99%.
That doesn't mean it's the right approach. Just that the alternative isn't really deployable today.
- jvanderbot 6y agoI agree. To elaborate, I think that "Looks" is the problem. Relying on appearance is a fundamental mistake. A road is a predictable flat surface that is safe for wheels at speed. If the map matches your ranging probes, and no geometry that is non-trivial sized impedes or will impeded your progress, you can drive. This should immediately preclude any approach to self driving cars that has pedestrians, bags of trash, debris, cross traffic, etc. Highway (and probably daytime) only. I don't understand the obsession with starting with corner cases and working back to the very real good that self-driving autonomy can do on highways at speed. Build back with lessons learned, rather than solving the whole problem in one shot. That seems like fundamental engineering, but the marketing team is in charge, not the engineers.