7 ms·
The feature is impossible to implement with the sensor suite that comes with the car.
by anonymoushn 4y ago
The feature is impossible to implement with the sensor suite that comes with the car.
- fallingknife 4y agoThe only currently known self driving system uses that same sensor suite (neural nets and cameras).
- simonh 4y agoTeslas don’t have LiDAR, which is used in all the best self driving systems.
- 725686 4y agoHe was talking about humans.
- rich_sasha 4y agoHumans don't have lidar either.
- TheLoafOfBread 4y agoAnd birds don't have jet engine, yet nobody is trying to replicate flight by wing flapping as a bird.
- gcanyon 4y agoMy friend, I have news for you :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBq9NcITh6o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBq9NcITh6o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtn4PpZEB8I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtn4PpZEB8I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R19QQiM5Mw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R19QQiM5Mw
- bastawhiz 4y agoHumans have stereoscopic vision Edit: I'd love to know why I'm being downvoted. Tesla cars guess depth with a neural net. Humans have the hardware for getting this data directly. Unless you either have lidar, radar, or dedicated stereoscopic cameras, you don't have real/accurate depth data. And depth data like that stops your car from plowing into white trucks.
- rootusrootus 4y agoThis is true. But most of the things perceived while driving are outside of the stereoscopic depth perception ability of humans. IIRC that stops around 20 meters or so.
- bastawhiz 4y agoUnless I've been driving very differently from you, most of the things that I care about the precise distance of are well within 20 meters. And moreover, it's lucky at best if my Model 3 acknowledges a car 20m away on the preview. It struggles with cars a few feet from me on the diagonal at stoplights.
- redox99 4y agoI didn't downvote you, but as I see it human stereoscopic vision is kind of irrelevant. If you close one eye, do you really feel like your ability to determine depth is significantly impacted? And even then, the stereo effect is basically negligible at the distances relevant for driving. A human missing one eye would have no trouble driving, except maybe for the reduced field of view.
- giantrobot 4y agoI hope not because it makes them even more wrong. Humans have a number of different sensors we use while driving.
- simonh 4y agoIn which case he’s even more wrong. Humans use a whole mess of different senses while driving, including hearing, the inertial sensitivity in the inner ear, touch to feel vibrations and from the car and the wheels on the road. Plus we have a huge amount of contextual information about the meaning of what we are seeing from life experience outside driving, which no Tesla that currently exists can ever have. It’s a clever bit of snark, but absurdly wide of the mark. If that’s actuary what the Tesla engineers think, no wonder they’re failing by their own criteria so completely.
- gcanyon 4y agoThe claim isn't that humans can drive as well using the Tesla cameras as they can in person, just that they can. That seems obviously true. The (not explicitly made) sub-claim is that an AI can make up for the lack of audio, etc. by being smarter than a human and faster than a human, better able to multi-task than a human, and completely non-distractible. That's debatable, but not impossible.
- danaris 4y ago...And furthermore, the neural nets and cameras Tesla uses are vastly inferior to our brains. Just because you can argue that a neural network of some kind uses the same basic structures as our brains doesn't mean that it can come within a light-year of what our brains can actually do.
- typon 4y agoIf you think humans are equivalent to cameras and artificial neural networks, you are severely wrong.
- lolinder 4y agoThis is wrong. Waymo uses both lidar and radar, which Tesla opted to remove. Also, look at Waymo's cars. Those things have sensors strapped all over in ways that give them lots of range and visibility. Tesla will never do that because it compromises the aesthetic. https://waymo.com/waymo-driver/ https://waymo.com/waymo-driver/
- _Microft 4y agoThey certainly referred to humans.
- ModernMech 4y agoBrains aren’t neural nets and eyes aren’t cameras.
- colejohnson66 4y agoWhy? The whole idea of neural nets is based on mimicking the brain. It's even in the name: neural (for neuron).
- teraflop 4y agoYeah, and the name of "Full Self-Driving" tells you that it can drive "by itself" i.e. without human intervention. But names aren't everything, and artificial neutral networks are "inspired by" but in truth drastically different from human brains.
- colejohnson66 4y agoHow so?
- lolinder 4y agoThey're different in practically every way. It's easier to enumerate the things they have in common: NNs borrowed the idea of using a connected network of functions whose outputs feed into each other's inputs. That's it. That's the total resemblance between the two. The brain isn't just an NN implemented in biology, it has whole systems that aren't accounted for in digital NNs, like hormones and neurotransmitters, and even the system of connected neurons doesn't work the way digital NNs implement it. Neural networks model the brain exactly as well as objects in OOP model cells: not very well at all. They're inspired by biology, nothing more.
- oneplane 4y agoIt also takes almost 2 decades to train them (individually), not likely sustainable for a car seller.
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoIf you are referring to humans, we have a couple orders of magnitude more connections, our neurons can achieve the same functions at 1 order of magnitude fewer numbers, and our brain has better inductive biases.
- rsynnott 4y agoOur ‘cameras’ are also so much better than any camera that could be put in a car (by most though not all metrics) that there is no real comparison.
- giobox 4y agoBy which metrics are human eyes outperforming “any camera that can be put in a car today”? This seems unlikely in almost any domain, given the much wider dynamic range camera sensors can capture - cameras can see into spectrum we simply can’t (infrared, UV…) and operate at much lower levels of light than a human eyeball while retaining full color vision using really cheap tech. They also don’t get tired or worse with age, or forget to wear their glasses, which is nice. This strikes me as a pretty odd statement to make, personally! “There is no real comparison” - for the benefit of the less informed, please make the comparison, assuming you are able.
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoThey can also "see" much further than the average human can [1]. The only way I could imagine that we are superior to phone cameras is stabilisation, something that could be resolved with vertical integration that informs the sensors and image processing units about forces being applied to the vehicle (though this is coming from somebody outside the field so take it with many grains of salt). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKMBx6x-lOI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKMBx6x-lOI
- sorenjan 4y agoThe human eye can perceive 21 stops dynamic range, much better than regular cameras. Event cameras might solve that issue, but they're not used other than in research at the moment.
- britneybitch 4y agoIf you're talking about humans, I think you're underestimating the importance of the less obvious senses: - sound - touch - equilibrioception (balance) - proprioception - and surely there are more Think of the visceral difference between driving a car in real life, vs driving a car on a screen in a video game.
- treis 4y agoThe problem with driving in video games is using a keyboard/mouse or controller. Driving with a steering wheel and pedals is pretty easy. Even more so if you have the monitors to give you a realistic field of view.
- qetlrkn 4y agodriving a car in a video game with a steering wheel is easy because it's an experience designed from the ground up with that interface in mind. driving games happily do shit like change the fov to make the user think they're going faster, etc. being easy to drive with a steering wheel in a driving game, and being easy to drive a real car with a steering wheel (with internet level latency and packet loss at play, mind you) are very different things
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 4y agoAnd they often employ tricks to improve the handling, like burying the center of mass below the vehicle.
- ghaff 4y agoPretty much all simulator games have to cheat. Because most of us can't hop into a Formula 1 race car or the cockpit of an F-22 and drive/fly it with no real training. (Much less race other drivers or fight in a dogfight.)
- treis 4y ago>being easy to drive with a steering wheel in a driving game, and being easy to drive a real car with a steering wheel (with internet level latency and packet loss at play, mind you) are very different things Sure, but I don't think it's that different than driving a real car looking out a monitor sized windshield. You might lose some braking and cornering without your inertial perceptions. But you'd still be able to driver around easily. Either way I think a speedometer is an assumed input for a self driving car and from that you can calculate almost everything needed related to proprioception.
- redox99 4y agoIt is pretty trivial to disprove that: A human could no doubt "remotely" drive using the current Tesla cameras. So the sensor suite might be more challenging than alternatives, but obviously not impossible. You could however argue that the current computer isn't powerful enough to run the software required for vision based L3/L4.
- bragr 4y ago>A human could no doubt "remotely" drive using the current Tesla cameras. I have doubts about that. I wouldn't want to remotely drive that without much better cameras at the very least. Advanced planning to be in the right lane or avoid obstacles is hard when the details are just a couple pixels.
- sonofhans 4y agoIt’s a trivial claim, advanced without evidence. There’s no reason to believe that a human could drive a car based only on those limited visual inputs. Humans use all our sense to drive. And even if it were true, so what? Last I checked Tesla didn’t have software which can perfectly emulated a human agent.
- robryk 4y ago> And even if it were true, so what? Last I checked Tesla didn’t have software which can perfectly emulated a human agent. GP was arguing against: > The feature is impossible to implement with the sensor suite that comes with the car. _For that statement_ it's immaterial whether Tesla does something right now, but rather whether it's in principle possible. Modulo your previous objection humans provide a counterexample to that (very general) statement.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 93po 4y agoIt is plenty possible to implement with the sensor suite that comes with the car.
- rootusrootus 4y agoThe cameras on a Model 3 were quite mediocre in 2018. Subaru puts a lot higher quality cameras on their cars than Tesla does.
- dymk 4y agoThen why haven't they?
- jupp0r 4y agoHow do you know? It's definitely hard to prove that something is impossible.