3 ms·
> If they were so passionate about spending money to make the safest cars, they'd be doing sensor fusion. That's your opinion. They have shown data where the i
by tantony 5y ago
> If they were so passionate about spending money to make the safest cars, they'd be doing sensor fusion.
That's your opinion. They have shown data where the information from radar was of a lower quality than what their vision stack was providing (e.g. lack of vertical resolution). Watch their AI day webcast for examples. Their current vision-only stack has been validated with LIDAR ground-truth data.
- heeen2 5y agoIs anyone arguing for replacing vision with lidar and radar instead of combining it?
- tantony 5y agoIf the radar data conflicts with what vision is saying, which one do they trust? They have shown that their vision stack has surpassed what they can do with radar. So "fusing" that data in only makes it worse when it gives conflicting information.
- pas 5y agoSensors are obviously important, but it doesn't really matter if two sensors conflict, the important thing is which one is consistent with their running model. So far their biggest problem is that they allow flicker. That's why sometimes the software picks the wrong lines. (Of course this is a very hard problem. Our brain conveniently smooths over sensory changes for us, because that's how our everyday reality is. Things don't flicker in and out of existence, nor does a car suddenly appear as a different thing, then switches back.) And if it turns out the sensor(s) failed, it has to be able to handle that too.