3 ms·
In defense of camera based vision systems, they can be more objective and consistent than humans. They won’t go partially blind without realizing it, for exampl
by steve_adams_86 4y ago
In defense of camera based vision systems, they can be more objective and consistent than humans. They won’t go partially blind without realizing it, for example.
There are examples of them catching things humans sometimes missed, so — it isn’t a total bust. At the same time though, no idea how you get bast the issues of blowouts obscuring the rest of the visual field, debris blocking the light, instances where depth is imperceptible, etc.
- me_me_me 4y agoI dont think you can jump over that hurdle without actual software intelligence. If driver gets flashed by light, or something unexpected they rely on their past experiences, projection of near future to extrapolate how to drive despite lack of visual information. If you close your eyes you'd be able to drive for few seconds etc. If you seen a car disappear behind a building, you still know that it will come to the intersection and you will act like you can 'see' it. In my opinion the biggest problem is mimicking human driving. We are based on incomplete information with non-precise actions, and we balance it out by being highly adaptive. We extrapolate information from environment and based on past experience we predict future outcomes - seamlessly (though not always correctly). Everything computers are bad at doing currently.