4 ms·

This is an easy thing to bet against, so much so that I would raise the bet too. I don’t think the current technology is capable of L5 at all but obviously lot

This is an easy thing to bet against, so much so that I would raise the bet too. I don’t think the current technology is capable of L5 at all but obviously lot of people feel differently

natch 5y ago
Why go by what is current? They are talking about the year 2030.
- yalogin 5y ago
  2030 is only 8 yrs away. It took magicleap 8 yrs just to launch a shitty version of their product. This space is very very tough.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    It is a tough space, but Magic Leap is a poor reference because that’s a very different space. I have no idea how close we are to level 5, but I suspect the challenge is closer to “invent a new algorithm that works fine with less data” than it is to “make new hardware”.
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
I think the hardware is capable of L5, but the software is still going to take another 20 years. Humans only have two eyes that can only look in one direction at a time, and we achieve L5. Yes, we get into crashes, but because humans do stupid things like text while driving, drive hyper-aggressively, drive drunk, or do simply careless things like change lanes without even looking first, none of which are mistakes a computer would make.
- nebula8804 5y ago
  On a side note, I am happy to see that all this hubub over self driving has resulted in some really sexy hardware designs. Just thinking about how the Tesla computer is so optimized that they are measuring instruction per pJ just really satisfied the inner side of me that wants to hyper optimize everything.
- Someone1234 5y ago
  > I think the hardware is capable of L5, but the software is still going to take another 20 years. Doesn't this inevitably mean that the hardware isn't capable too with extra steps? Like in 20 years with tens of millions more lines of code, we're going to need more hardware resources to run it (in particular at near real-time) than the hardware would provide today. I agree with you, to be clear. I am just pointing out that 20 years worth of software is going to be a monster to run at the timings that will be required. So we could hit a hardware limitation between then and now on top of the hard software problems that must be solved. > Humans only have two eyes that can only look in one direction at a time, and we achieve L5. Humans use parallax to perceive depth via the overlap of both eyes, which as far as I know isn't used by automated vehicles for reasons unknown (patents?). Automated vehicles using visible light cameras are mapping the world in 2D, humans perceive the world in limited 3D.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    Stereo vision is oversold in humans. You can easily drive with one eye. We use a lot of information to estimate depth including relative size of things, as well as “structure from motion” which is the relative movement of things over time. Tesla does estimate depth using structure from motion (and probably other cues). They call it virtual LIDAR in presentations. https://youtu.be/NSDTZQdo6H8 https://youtu.be/NSDTZQdo6H8
    - gpt5 5y ago
      Absolutely correct. This is why VR works really well for a person with only a single eye vision.
  - codeulike 5y ago
    What? Of course they use parallax
    - Someone1234 5y ago
      Who does? Parallax requires the cameras to be very carefully angled (toed-in), so they overlap in a very specific way, it isn't simply two cameras recording the same image straight. Most automated vehicles companies using visible light cameras have them pointed straight forward, that isn't therefore using parallax like a human does.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  An interesting question is how would you test a human driver to determine whether or not they "achieve L5"?
  - 00N8 5y ago
    For that I'd purpose a "taxi Turing test" - a vehicular automation engineer rides in the back wearing augmented goggles that block out where a driver may or may not be sitting & distort all voice audio to sound robotic. The engineer requests navigation thru various routes & environments or whatever testing they'd do for normal L5 evaluation. Not sure I see the point, but doable
- mtgx 5y ago

This is an easy thing to bet against, so much so that I would raise the bet too. I don’t think the current technology is capable of L5 at all but obviously lot of people feel differently

natch 5y ago

Why go by what is current? They are talking about the year 2030.

yalogin 5y ago
2030 is only 8 yrs away. It took magicleap 8 yrs just to launch a shitty version of their product. This space is very very tough.
- ben_w 5y ago
  It is a tough space, but Magic Leap is a poor reference because that’s a very different space. I have no idea how close we are to level 5, but I suspect the challenge is closer to “invent a new algorithm that works fine with less data” than it is to “make new hardware”.

Sohcahtoa82 5y ago

I think the hardware is capable of L5, but the software is still going to take another 20 years. Humans only have two eyes that can only look in one direction at a time, and we achieve L5. Yes, we get into crashes, but because humans do stupid things like text while driving, drive hyper-aggressively, drive drunk, or do simply careless things like change lanes without even looking first, none of which are mistakes a computer would make.

nebula8804 5y ago
On a side note, I am happy to see that all this hubub over self driving has resulted in some really sexy hardware designs. Just thinking about how the Tesla computer is so optimized that they are measuring instruction per pJ just really satisfied the inner side of me that wants to hyper optimize everything.
Someone1234 5y ago
> I think the hardware is capable of L5, but the software is still going to take another 20 years. Doesn't this inevitably mean that the hardware isn't capable too with extra steps? Like in 20 years with tens of millions more lines of code, we're going to need more hardware resources to run it (in particular at near real-time) than the hardware would provide today. I agree with you, to be clear. I am just pointing out that 20 years worth of software is going to be a monster to run at the timings that will be required. So we could hit a hardware limitation between then and now on top of the hard software problems that must be solved. > Humans only have two eyes that can only look in one direction at a time, and we achieve L5. Humans use parallax to perceive depth via the overlap of both eyes, which as far as I know isn't used by automated vehicles for reasons unknown (patents?). Automated vehicles using visible light cameras are mapping the world in 2D, humans perceive the world in limited 3D.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  Stereo vision is oversold in humans. You can easily drive with one eye. We use a lot of information to estimate depth including relative size of things, as well as “structure from motion” which is the relative movement of things over time. Tesla does estimate depth using structure from motion (and probably other cues). They call it virtual LIDAR in presentations. https://youtu.be/NSDTZQdo6H8 https://youtu.be/NSDTZQdo6H8
  - gpt5 5y ago
    Absolutely correct. This is why VR works really well for a person with only a single eye vision.
- codeulike 5y ago
  What? Of course they use parallax
  - Someone1234 5y ago
    Who does? Parallax requires the cameras to be very carefully angled (toed-in), so they overlap in a very specific way, it isn't simply two cameras recording the same image straight. Most automated vehicles companies using visible light cameras have them pointed straight forward, that isn't therefore using parallax like a human does.
tshaddox 5y ago
An interesting question is how would you test a human driver to determine whether or not they "achieve L5"?
- 00N8 5y ago
  For that I'd purpose a "taxi Turing test" - a vehicular automation engineer rides in the back wearing augmented goggles that block out where a driver may or may not be sitting & distort all voice audio to sound robotic. The engineer requests navigation thru various routes & environments or whatever testing they'd do for normal L5 evaluation. Not sure I see the point, but doable
mtgx 5y ago