4 ms·

So if a human were driving the car, they would have crashed into the plane? Humans don't have radar or lidar.... and probably worse vision than the cameras on

So if a human were driving the car, they would have crashed into the plane? Humans don't have radar or lidar.... and probably worse vision than the cameras on a Tesla have... but probably wouldn't have hit the plane. There may well be valid arguments for radar/lidar superiority over cameras, but the line of reasoning you're suggesting isn't in that category.

serf 5y ago
humans are mobile, with moving necks/torso/eyes/etc. I don't think anyone would argue that cameras couldn't do the same job if capable of realizing depth and re-assessing from different angles when confronted with ambiguity... but show me what a system like that would look like. A human that is parking somewhere ambiguously often gets out of their car to inspect the area with their binocular vision from multiple angles; this is common among trailer owners. The vision system on a vehicle is tasked with a harder problem in many ways -- it's trying to solve the ambiguity of the scene purely visually with mostly-stationary cameras and prior knowledge.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > moving necks/torso/eyes/etc > realizing depth and re-assessing from different angles A car with three or four widely spaced cameras can get way better visual information than a human can. (At least in the forward direction. Add more cameras for 360.) To the point that you could probably give the human a VR set tied into the cameras and have them do a better job because you can make the pillars transparent. (Might need a special VR set with extra-wide field of view.)
- sbuttgereit 5y ago
  That's all fine and I don't necessarily take issue with what you're saying, but now we're talking about implementation details. > but show me what a system like that would look like. I'm guessing not so much more wacky as the lidar based cars I see driving through my neighborhood. The accident in the original link may well have been caused by an inadequate vision based system (I don't know), but just because an accident happened with a single vision implementation doesn't mean that somehow Lidar/Radar would necessarily be superior. That conclusion, tossed off by the original comment, is just wrong as it stands. > A human that is parking somewhere ambiguously often gets out of their car to inspect the area with their binocular vision from multiple angles; In most cases, but not always. I have an old friend that was completely blind in one eye: still legally licensed to drive and successfully navigated the environment better than a lidar/radar/artificial vision system still can. Even in bad weather conditions such as snow and rain (and night). Will that hold true over time? Hard to say, but I'd bet right now that the larger problem is processing the received information regardless of how the information was acquired. The problem with the original statement is that it reminded me of the line of reasoning that goes, "there are aspects of the world that science has no answer for, therefore God." or "there was an abnormally cold day in spring, therefore no global warming" Tesla hasn't implemented a sufficiently robust visual driving system to avoid running into parked airplanes, therefore Lidar/Radar. It simply doesn't follow. Much more is needed. Ultimately, to date, the only sufficient input for fully independent driving that we have is vision based. Lidar/Radar may ultimately be superior, but a vision based system is so far the only generally accepted method for driving... even if it is biological vision rather than computer vision.

serf 5y ago

humans are mobile, with moving necks/torso/eyes/etc. I don't think anyone would argue that cameras couldn't do the same job if capable of realizing depth and re-assessing from different angles when confronted with ambiguity... but show me what a system like that would look like. A human that is parking somewhere ambiguously often gets out of their car to inspect the area with their binocular vision from multiple angles; this is common among trailer owners. The vision system on a vehicle is tasked with a harder problem in many ways -- it's trying to solve the ambiguity of the scene purely visually with mostly-stationary cameras and prior knowledge.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> moving necks/torso/eyes/etc > realizing depth and re-assessing from different angles A car with three or four widely spaced cameras can get way better visual information than a human can. (At least in the forward direction. Add more cameras for 360.) To the point that you could probably give the human a VR set tied into the cameras and have them do a better job because you can make the pillars transparent. (Might need a special VR set with extra-wide field of view.)
sbuttgereit 5y ago
That's all fine and I don't necessarily take issue with what you're saying, but now we're talking about implementation details. > but show me what a system like that would look like. I'm guessing not so much more wacky as the lidar based cars I see driving through my neighborhood. The accident in the original link may well have been caused by an inadequate vision based system (I don't know), but just because an accident happened with a single vision implementation doesn't mean that somehow Lidar/Radar would necessarily be superior. That conclusion, tossed off by the original comment, is just wrong as it stands. > A human that is parking somewhere ambiguously often gets out of their car to inspect the area with their binocular vision from multiple angles; In most cases, but not always. I have an old friend that was completely blind in one eye: still legally licensed to drive and successfully navigated the environment better than a lidar/radar/artificial vision system still can. Even in bad weather conditions such as snow and rain (and night). Will that hold true over time? Hard to say, but I'd bet right now that the larger problem is processing the received information regardless of how the information was acquired. The problem with the original statement is that it reminded me of the line of reasoning that goes, "there are aspects of the world that science has no answer for, therefore God." or "there was an abnormally cold day in spring, therefore no global warming" Tesla hasn't implemented a sufficiently robust visual driving system to avoid running into parked airplanes, therefore Lidar/Radar. It simply doesn't follow. Much more is needed. Ultimately, to date, the only sufficient input for fully independent driving that we have is vision based. Lidar/Radar may ultimately be superior, but a vision based system is so far the only generally accepted method for driving... even if it is biological vision rather than computer vision.