6 ms·

Disclaimer, I work in the autonomous vehicle industry but the opinion are of my own. I roll my eyes (heh) when people say if humans drivers only use their eyes

Disclaimer, I work in the autonomous vehicle industry but the opinion are of my own. I roll my eyes (heh) when people say if humans drivers only use their eyes so AVs should too. What a load of bull. While a camera is getting really good, but HDR is still subpar to human range. What about stereo vision and how we use two eyes. What about how your eyeball can articulate while having stereo vision. What about how your neck also articulates your vision range. What about how your eyes instinctively look at moving objects. There’s so much more to “human vision” than just the eyeball.

spzb 5y ago
Plus, you don’t only use your eyes. Your ears sense sound, the balance-sensing thingies in your ears, even the vibration sensed by your butt feed into your brain’s awareness of what’s going on.
RavlaAlvar 5y ago
A question I always wanted to ask: why stereo vision cannot replace lidar?
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  It's just less accurate, more error prone, and more limited. Especially in bad conditions and when there is low contrast. Stereo vision can also be fooled by things like reflections. Stereo vision at the human level also requires head movements and so on.
  - xkjkls 5y ago
    Also people don't realize how important blinking is. Any camera system that is not thoroughly self cleaning is going to have significant problems after a relatively short period of time. We don't have cameras built to withstand the elements day-after-day like our eyeballs.
    - RavlaAlvar 5y ago
      Doesn't lidar have the same problem then?
al3xandre 5y ago
Everything you mention seems possible to replicate with 2 cameras, a few sensors (and a X years of AI/software dev). Which is the point of people saying cameras are good enough if human’s eyes are good enough. Or am I missing something?
- URSpider94 5y ago
  Two cameras, plus as-of-yet unknown human vision to synthesize depth info correctly for arbitrary scenes, plus the ability to articulate side by side by 8-10 inches, plus a very efficient liquid coating plus cleaning mechanism (blinking), plus the ability to deploy anti-glare shades proactively (hands).
  - lazide 5y ago
    Don’t forget the self maintaining general intelligence with a minimum of 14-16 years of real world training (minimum, varies by state) to understand context and environmental factors, go to highly trained specialists when sensors seem out of calibration, etc.
    - brianwawok 5y ago
      So that’s the good side. Now add in the bad sides. Sometimes drunk / high. Often tired. Night blindness as you get old. Maybe cataracts. Beating the prime of the prime human driver with cameras may be hard. Beating tired / drunk / old drivers is a different story.
      - lazide 5y ago
        Depends on how buggy the firmware is and how poorly maintained the sensors are I’m guessing?
  - IIAOPSW 5y ago
    >plus as-of-yet unknown human vision to synthesize depth info correctly for arbitrary scenes I have an adversarial example. https://wallpapercave.com/wp/InAcQKW.jpg https://wallpapercave.com/wp/InAcQKW.jpg
nharada 5y ago
The human eye has incredible dynamic range -- it's something like 25-30 stops total (although you can't see them all at once). Compare that to the 10-12 stops for a high quality DSLR and the 5-7 for the types of cameras going into cars.
vardump 5y ago
We don't really use stereo vision for the distances required for driving. Our eyes are simply too close to each other for that. Stereo vision is mostly usable below 15 ft/5m range, if even that.
- vl 5y ago
  While I think self-driving will be just fine with cameras, human stereo vision works at much longer distances than 15ft: you can easily test it by looking at few distant trees (150ft), and then closing one eye with a hand and blinking. You’ll see that there is good Z-layer separation with two eyes and none with one eye.
stefan_ 5y ago
The dynamic range is the kicker. Automotive cameras are already grayscale to get as much light as possible and not compromise vision at night but its still far inferior to the human eye (and even that is bad! but it's the benchmark Elon chooses). No surprise then that the vision-only "level 5 autonomous driving" system would want the high beams on...
jgalt212 5y ago
What about how birds use wings to fly? And what about how fish use fins to swim?
the8472 5y ago
That's quite one-sided list which imo doesn't really prove anything about whether human eyes or cameras have an overall advantage. We could make a similarly one-sided list in favor of cameras: E.g. one could cite faster adaption rates of cameras, 360° vision, ability to capture infrared photons, possibility of wider stereo separation etc.

spzb 5y ago

Plus, you don’t only use your eyes. Your ears sense sound, the balance-sensing thingies in your ears, even the vibration sensed by your butt feed into your brain’s awareness of what’s going on.

RavlaAlvar 5y ago

A question I always wanted to ask: why stereo vision cannot replace lidar?

sudosysgen 5y ago
It's just less accurate, more error prone, and more limited. Especially in bad conditions and when there is low contrast. Stereo vision can also be fooled by things like reflections. Stereo vision at the human level also requires head movements and so on.
- xkjkls 5y ago
  Also people don't realize how important blinking is. Any camera system that is not thoroughly self cleaning is going to have significant problems after a relatively short period of time. We don't have cameras built to withstand the elements day-after-day like our eyeballs.
  - RavlaAlvar 5y ago
    Doesn't lidar have the same problem then?

al3xandre 5y ago

Everything you mention seems possible to replicate with 2 cameras, a few sensors (and a X years of AI/software dev). Which is the point of people saying cameras are good enough if human’s eyes are good enough. Or am I missing something?

URSpider94 5y ago
Two cameras, plus as-of-yet unknown human vision to synthesize depth info correctly for arbitrary scenes, plus the ability to articulate side by side by 8-10 inches, plus a very efficient liquid coating plus cleaning mechanism (blinking), plus the ability to deploy anti-glare shades proactively (hands).
- lazide 5y ago
  Don’t forget the self maintaining general intelligence with a minimum of 14-16 years of real world training (minimum, varies by state) to understand context and environmental factors, go to highly trained specialists when sensors seem out of calibration, etc.
  - brianwawok 5y ago
    So that’s the good side. Now add in the bad sides. Sometimes drunk / high. Often tired. Night blindness as you get old. Maybe cataracts. Beating the prime of the prime human driver with cameras may be hard. Beating tired / drunk / old drivers is a different story.
    - lazide 5y ago
      Depends on how buggy the firmware is and how poorly maintained the sensors are I’m guessing?
- IIAOPSW 5y ago
  >plus as-of-yet unknown human vision to synthesize depth info correctly for arbitrary scenes I have an adversarial example. https://wallpapercave.com/wp/InAcQKW.jpg https://wallpapercave.com/wp/InAcQKW.jpg

nharada 5y ago

The human eye has incredible dynamic range -- it's something like 25-30 stops total (although you can't see them all at once). Compare that to the 10-12 stops for a high quality DSLR and the 5-7 for the types of cameras going into cars.

vardump 5y ago

We don't really use stereo vision for the distances required for driving. Our eyes are simply too close to each other for that. Stereo vision is mostly usable below 15 ft/5m range, if even that.

vl 5y ago
While I think self-driving will be just fine with cameras, human stereo vision works at much longer distances than 15ft: you can easily test it by looking at few distant trees (150ft), and then closing one eye with a hand and blinking. You’ll see that there is good Z-layer separation with two eyes and none with one eye.

stefan_ 5y ago

The dynamic range is the kicker. Automotive cameras are already grayscale to get as much light as possible and not compromise vision at night but its still far inferior to the human eye (and even that is bad! but it's the benchmark Elon chooses). No surprise then that the vision-only "level 5 autonomous driving" system would want the high beams on...

jgalt212 5y ago

What about how birds use wings to fly? And what about how fish use fins to swim?

the8472 5y ago

That's quite one-sided list which imo doesn't really prove anything about whether human eyes or cameras have an overall advantage. We could make a similarly one-sided list in favor of cameras: E.g. one could cite faster adaption rates of cameras, 360° vision, ability to capture infrared photons, possibility of wider stereo separation etc.