9 ms·
Not trying to troll, but your two 'cameras' were able to identify it without LIDAR, why shouldn't two or more of Tesla's / name your manufacturer?
by FlyingAvatar 6y ago
Not trying to troll, but your two 'cameras' were able to identify it without LIDAR, why shouldn't two or more of Tesla's / name your manufacturer?
- QuixoticQuibit 6y agoAnd yet with our two cameras, we still get into a lot of accidents. Why would we not want to improve upon that with additional sensors like LIDAR?
- FlyingAvatar 6y agoSo you're going to hold off riding in vehicles with human drivers until they get augmented with LIDAR as well? To be clear, I am not saying don't use LIDAR. I was calling out OP's statement that they would feel unsafe in a car without LIDAR since it was unable to detect an unsafe condition that they detected themselves without LIDAR.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- AlotOfReading 6y agoThe dynamic range of your eyes vastly exceeds any "normal" camera on the market today and have much better low light sensitivity. Not only that, they're paired to a biological supercomputer whose "programming" is more powerful, efficient, and robust than anything currently in silicon. It's certainly possible to drive autonomously with cameras-only, but it's very much an open question whether we can do so safely today.
- rasz 6y agobecause Tesla uses 3 front facing Black/Red ~1000x600 36 frames per second cameras mounted in the center with no ability for parallax.