6 ms·

Yep, I honestly have more hope for this type of autonomous driving. Elon may be right about cameras theoretically containing more information than LIDAR, but t

Yep, I honestly have more hope for this type of autonomous driving. Elon may be right about cameras theoretically containing more information than LIDAR, but that's like saying an encrypted file contains more information than a smaller, unencrypted file. Sure it may be true, but if you can't crack the encryption effectively and repeatably the point is moot. In the meantime stuff like this is what's going to really make an economic difference. Boring supply chain shit that makes everything marginally cheaper and most people are completely unaware.

jakeinspace 5y ago
Not only that, but it should be pretty clear that using a combination of vision technologies (cameras, LIDAR, RADAR, sonar...) means that more edge cases should be covered. The failure conditions for optical wavelength cameras are different than for LiDAR, or infrared cameras, so really good sensor fusion should theoretically reduce the number of situations in which the internal model of the world has major errors. I'd rather be in a self driving car with 6 cameras and a 360-degree LiDAR then one with 20 cameras, even if 20 cameras are providing more information about the world.
- aspenmayer 5y ago
  This is analogous to the megapixel quantity versus quality debate. I’ll take fewer megapixels paired with a good lens over more MPs with substandard glass anyday.
- mavhc 5y ago
  Now you just need really good sensor fusion, and a 3rd sensor type to outvote the stalemate of the other 2. Oh wait, now they give 3 different results
dghughes 5y ago
I don't have much hope for driverless trucks at least not here in Canada during the winter. A 50 ton 30m long driverless truck fishtailing on ice would be dangerous.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  Once you go driverless, the truck size can be reduced since that large overhead (the human driver) that needed amortized over a big load is gone. They could still join up to make trains at certain points in the journey but even then they'll all be able to brake or avoid obstacles individually.
  - thomastjeffery 5y ago
    I don't think there is any intention to shrink the trailer, which represents the bulk of size.
Spivak 5y ago
I think Elon is right, but for the wrong reasons. There should be no fundamental reason that you can't drive a car with two really shitty cameras mounted inside the car looking out the windshield and windows. We somehow manage it every day. The amount of environmental information can't really matter that much since we're able to build a good-enough model of the world around our car without any of it.
- olyjohn 5y ago
  Why are we setting the bar at human vision? Computers have so many ways of being able to see better than humans. Why would you not want the most visibility possible? Why not be able to see around the car in front of you for more advanced warning? Or why not be able to see around corners? I mean, we put so many cameras in cars now just to give the driver the most visibility possible... and for some reason, we should only use 2 cameras for driving, because that's what humans have? Seems like a low bar to me.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    I think you're misunderstanding my point. Whatever breakthrough that enables autonomous driving won't be blindly throwing more data at the problem until it works since it's clearly not necessary for human drivers. Or phrased another way, autonomous driving isn't a data or sensor problem. Humans don't have super advanced sensors or a hive mind that amalgamates all driving scenarios from billions of miles driven and engineers and data scientists just need to catch up. No, it's our brain that's the super advanced thing that we haven't caught up with. Yes, in real life you would want your autonomous driver to have all the data possible available to it.

jakeinspace 5y ago

Not only that, but it should be pretty clear that using a combination of vision technologies (cameras, LIDAR, RADAR, sonar...) means that more edge cases should be covered. The failure conditions for optical wavelength cameras are different than for LiDAR, or infrared cameras, so really good sensor fusion should theoretically reduce the number of situations in which the internal model of the world has major errors. I'd rather be in a self driving car with 6 cameras and a 360-degree LiDAR then one with 20 cameras, even if 20 cameras are providing more information about the world.

aspenmayer 5y ago
This is analogous to the megapixel quantity versus quality debate. I’ll take fewer megapixels paired with a good lens over more MPs with substandard glass anyday.
mavhc 5y ago
Now you just need really good sensor fusion, and a 3rd sensor type to outvote the stalemate of the other 2. Oh wait, now they give 3 different results

dghughes 5y ago

I don't have much hope for driverless trucks at least not here in Canada during the winter. A 50 ton 30m long driverless truck fishtailing on ice would be dangerous.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Once you go driverless, the truck size can be reduced since that large overhead (the human driver) that needed amortized over a big load is gone. They could still join up to make trains at certain points in the journey but even then they'll all be able to brake or avoid obstacles individually.
- thomastjeffery 5y ago
  I don't think there is any intention to shrink the trailer, which represents the bulk of size.

Spivak 5y ago

I think Elon is right, but for the wrong reasons. There should be no fundamental reason that you can't drive a car with two really shitty cameras mounted inside the car looking out the windshield and windows. We somehow manage it every day. The amount of environmental information can't really matter that much since we're able to build a good-enough model of the world around our car without any of it.

olyjohn 5y ago
Why are we setting the bar at human vision? Computers have so many ways of being able to see better than humans. Why would you not want the most visibility possible? Why not be able to see around the car in front of you for more advanced warning? Or why not be able to see around corners? I mean, we put so many cameras in cars now just to give the driver the most visibility possible... and for some reason, we should only use 2 cameras for driving, because that's what humans have? Seems like a low bar to me.
- Spivak 5y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding my point. Whatever breakthrough that enables autonomous driving won't be blindly throwing more data at the problem until it works since it's clearly not necessary for human drivers. Or phrased another way, autonomous driving isn't a data or sensor problem. Humans don't have super advanced sensors or a hive mind that amalgamates all driving scenarios from billions of miles driven and engineers and data scientists just need to catch up. No, it's our brain that's the super advanced thing that we haven't caught up with. Yes, in real life you would want your autonomous driver to have all the data possible available to it.