5 ms·
So, yes, cars that are programmed to have AEB: perform well at AEB and not other tasks. We are in agreement here. (I even agree with you that those cars use Rad
by RC_ITR 4y ago
So, yes, cars that are programmed to have AEB: perform well at AEB and not other tasks. We are in agreement here. (I even agree with you that those cars use Radar for AEB).
Now, where we disagree is you implying that cars with AEB-level radar (literally $10 off-the-shelf parts with whatever sensor fusion some MobilEye intern dreams ups) are somehow the same as self-driving cars (the goal of Tesla Autopilot).
Every serious self-driving car/tractor-trailer out there uses radar as a component of its sensor stack because Lidar and simple imaging is not sufficient.
And that's the point I was trying to make - we agree it's trivial for radar to find things they just need sensor fusion to confirm the finding and begin motion planning. This is why a real driverless car is hard despite what Elon would like you to believe. There is no one sensor that will do it. Full stop.
And this cuts to the core of why Tesla is so dangerous. They are making a car with AEB and lane-keeping and moving the goal posts to make people (you included) think that's somehow a sane approach to driverless cars.
- kalleboo 4y agoBut if the radar just sees a static object and can't tell if it's an overhead sign or a car, and the camera vision is too washed out, how would sensor fusion help in your example?
- sangnoir 4y agoPerhaps stop cheaping out on the cameras and procure those with high dynamic range. Then again those may be "expensive and complicate the supply chain with for a small delta"
- kalleboo 4y agoBut then, again, what is the point of the radar?
- cbsmith 4y agoLidar would make it pretty obvious whether it's a sign or a car, even if the camera didn't tell you. The part where the lidar doesn't bounce back at vehicle level would be a dead give away.
- robertlagrant 4y agoA approaching incline has entered the chat.
- cbsmith 4y agoApproaching inclines aren't exactly hard to interpret from lidar either.
- pcl 4y agoA human driver slows down and moved their head around to get a better view when the glare from the sun is too strong to see well. I’d expect a self driving car to similarly compromise on speed for the sake of safety, when presented with uncertainty.
- Reason077 4y ago> ”There is no one sensor that will do it. Full stop.” Yet somehow, humans can drive cars with just a pair of optical sensors (mounted on a swivelling gimbal, of sorts). In theory, a sufficiently capable AI should be able to drive a car at least as well as a human can using the same input: vision.
- fennecfoxy 4y agoI believe in the sentiment, but it's true that we humans also crash our cars a LOT. From minor bumps and scrapes to multiple fatalities.
- CyanBird 4y ago> sufficiently capable AI And Tesla lacks that, so therefore they ought not simply rely on cameras and ought use extra auxiliary systems to avoid danger to their consumers, they are not doing this because it reduces their profit margins, alas, this hn thread
- numpad0 4y ago> humans can drive cars Needs emphasis on can
- freejazz 4y agoYes, in theory, something sufficient will suffice. I think we are trying to bring some clarity to the topic, however.
- sangnoir 4y agoIsn't this a bit like saying we can do better than fixed-wing aircraft, because birds can flap their wings? With sufficiently advanced material science, flapping-wing human flight too, is possible. But that doesn't mean Boeing and Cessna are misguided.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago> Yet somehow, humans can drive cars with just a pair of optical sensors A pair of optical sensors and a compute engine vastly superior to anything that we will have in the near future for self-driving cars. Humans can do fine with driving on just a couple of cameras because we have an excellent mental model (at least when not distracted, tired, drunk, etc.). Cars won't have that solid of a mental model for a long, long time, so sensor superiority is a way to compensate for that.