4 ms·

You misunderstood. It's not choosing either lidar or vision, it's that you need sensor fusion of both to make more accurate calls, neither of them is enough alo

You misunderstood. It's not choosing either lidar or vision, it's that you need sensor fusion of both to make more accurate calls, neither of them is enough alone.

williamcotton 3y ago
But there’s a cost to the software system when you add more inputs both in training and prediction and more-so when the inputs are in conflict! If you think about what really needs to happen to be able to tell of a box is cardboard or plywood you need a fully embodied system, ideally similar “raising” an android in a human environment.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  >the inputs are in conflict! Better for safety to have conflicting inputs that require an arbiter (even human), than a system that's confidently wrong on a single input and drives you at full speed into a 'Wile E. Coyote' wall painted to look like a tunnel. [1] Since the moon landing, for safety, all aeronautics have been built around triple voting arbitration system where the correct answer is the one voted by the majority. This triple voting system has been adopted in many ECUs running safety critical operation in modern cars and we should demand it for self driving tech as well if we wish to have autonomous driving that's actually autonomous and also doesn't confidently try to kill you at times. >But there’s a cost to the software system when you add more inputs both in training and prediction Yes, not getting people killed, who are traveling in fast moving heavy machineries, is a very expensive problem to solve(ask the aero industry), welcome to the real world of actual engineering where safety must be taken seriously, and not brushed aside by overhyped SV fantasies of playing fast and loose with regulations and human lives for the sake of "disruption". [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iWvedIhWjM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iWvedIhWjM
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    All aeronautics require a triple voting arbitration system where the correct answer is the one voted by the majority. But those are not generally autonomous systems and if they are they operate within much simpler environments. In the case of multiple sensors and a voting mechanism the pilot is still in control and making the decisions. These are two very different kinds of systems! SV fantasies of playing fast and loose with hopium. Ah, so that’s it. Your arguments are based mainly on emotion and not engineering. You still haven’t explained to me how these systems can deal with the original problem I presented. EDIT: You'll notice that the commenter appealing to the populism of saying snarky things about Silicon Valley is receiving more encouragement from this forum than I am. I am very much trying to keep things even keeled and ChuckNorris is doing very much the opposite. Would everyone prefer that we just shoot emotionally charged hot takes back at each other with a minimum of engineering focused discussion?
    - solardev 3y ago
      (Not the person you were responding to, but) I don't really see the dilemma here. While driving, humans use sight, sound, touch (like rumble strips), and occasionally smell (engine scents, crashes, wildfires) as inputs. Sometimes these inputs conflict, but we make judgment calls. Sometimes those judgment calls are wrong, but I'd still rather have the multiple inputs than not. With a box on the street, cardboard or not, I wouldn't want to drive over it mindlessly. What if there was something sharp and heavy inside the cardboard box? Better to detect its presence and either come to a graceful stop if possible, swerve around it gently if possible, or warn the driver to take action and then ungracefully brake as a last resort. I wouldn't want any system to drive right over a possible collision based on an assumption of its material. If the camera sees an obstacle, the lidar confirms it's not an illusion, the radar senses it too... that doesn't seem like some unresolvable dilemma. That's a triple redundant system telling you there's something potentially dangerous on the street ahead, and a judgment call has to be made. In this case it seems like those systems would more likely agree than not. A more realistic scenario might be when the camera is obstructed due to glare, or the lidar due to fog or whatever and they disagree about the state of things. Then yes some arbiter would have to make a judgment call. Sometimes it'll be wrong. Sometimes deadly wrong. But that's the case whether it had three inputs or two or just one, or or one camera in a stereo setup has dirt on it, or a bird poop on the windshield is misidentified, etc. Being able separate input noise and errors is part of the job of these systems, something that's made easier with different sensor types that can cross check each either.
  - magicalhippo 3y ago
    > Better for safety to have conflicting inputs that require an arbiter, than a system that's confidently wrong on a single input and drives you at full speed into a 'Wile E. Coyote' wall painted to look like a tunnel. Reminded of the recent Japanese lunar probe that failed[1]. They relied on a radar ranging sensor to determine altitude, and when they flew over a large crater the sudden change in distance to ground caused the software to fail the radar sensor. This again meant it had to rely only the IMU, which has drift issues[2], causing it to believe it was just above ground when it was in fact way above. I'm thinking a camera looking down in combination with the radar would have been more resilient, as there would be less need to rely on hardcoded threshold values in order to determine when to fail the sensors. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JlUnOAiMm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JlUnOAiMm4 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system#Drift_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system#Dri...
    - lsaferite 3y ago
      Not having read anything on the failure, I'm surprised they wouldn't have other range finding methods. Like LIDAR actually, just not the LIDAR everyone thinks of. They have them on commercial drone packages. It's like a single beam LIDAR setup. Does better at long distance range finding than the mmWave Radar units. The mmW unit handles water better though. The engineers that built the JP lander are likely far smarter than I am and probably thought things through much better than my simple armchair observations.
      - magicalhippo 3y ago
        A single beam LIDAR would suffer the same problem. That is, the radar was accurate, the problem was the team hadn't foreseen the probe flying over such a deep crater, thus the threshold for failing the sensor in case of a sudden large change in apparent altitude was set too low. This is why I suggested a visual-based sensor, since it would be using a very different measuring scheme, and one which could also be used to cross-check the IMU data.
  - donkeyd 3y ago
    > Better ... than a system that's confidently wrong If ChatGPT has taught us all anything, this should be it. It can be so confidently wrong while sounding believable, that I wouldn't be surprised if some kid has turned in completely hallucinated homework thinking it was a great essay.
- the__alchemist 3y ago
  I suspect you overestimate the computational or logical complexity of sensor fusion.

You misunderstood. It's not choosing either lidar or vision, it's that you need sensor fusion of both to make more accurate calls, neither of them is enough alone.

williamcotton 3y ago

But there’s a cost to the software system when you add more inputs both in training and prediction and more-so when the inputs are in conflict! If you think about what really needs to happen to be able to tell of a box is cardboard or plywood you need a fully embodied system, ideally similar “raising” an android in a human environment.

ChuckNorris89 3y ago
>the inputs are in conflict! Better for safety to have conflicting inputs that require an arbiter (even human), than a system that's confidently wrong on a single input and drives you at full speed into a 'Wile E. Coyote' wall painted to look like a tunnel. [1] Since the moon landing, for safety, all aeronautics have been built around triple voting arbitration system where the correct answer is the one voted by the majority. This triple voting system has been adopted in many ECUs running safety critical operation in modern cars and we should demand it for self driving tech as well if we wish to have autonomous driving that's actually autonomous and also doesn't confidently try to kill you at times. >But there’s a cost to the software system when you add more inputs both in training and prediction Yes, not getting people killed, who are traveling in fast moving heavy machineries, is a very expensive problem to solve(ask the aero industry), welcome to the real world of actual engineering where safety must be taken seriously, and not brushed aside by overhyped SV fantasies of playing fast and loose with regulations and human lives for the sake of "disruption". [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iWvedIhWjM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iWvedIhWjM
- williamcotton 3y ago
  All aeronautics require a triple voting arbitration system where the correct answer is the one voted by the majority. But those are not generally autonomous systems and if they are they operate within much simpler environments. In the case of multiple sensors and a voting mechanism the pilot is still in control and making the decisions. These are two very different kinds of systems! SV fantasies of playing fast and loose with hopium. Ah, so that’s it. Your arguments are based mainly on emotion and not engineering. You still haven’t explained to me how these systems can deal with the original problem I presented. EDIT: You'll notice that the commenter appealing to the populism of saying snarky things about Silicon Valley is receiving more encouragement from this forum than I am. I am very much trying to keep things even keeled and ChuckNorris is doing very much the opposite. Would everyone prefer that we just shoot emotionally charged hot takes back at each other with a minimum of engineering focused discussion?
  - solardev 3y ago
    (Not the person you were responding to, but) I don't really see the dilemma here. While driving, humans use sight, sound, touch (like rumble strips), and occasionally smell (engine scents, crashes, wildfires) as inputs. Sometimes these inputs conflict, but we make judgment calls. Sometimes those judgment calls are wrong, but I'd still rather have the multiple inputs than not. With a box on the street, cardboard or not, I wouldn't want to drive over it mindlessly. What if there was something sharp and heavy inside the cardboard box? Better to detect its presence and either come to a graceful stop if possible, swerve around it gently if possible, or warn the driver to take action and then ungracefully brake as a last resort. I wouldn't want any system to drive right over a possible collision based on an assumption of its material. If the camera sees an obstacle, the lidar confirms it's not an illusion, the radar senses it too... that doesn't seem like some unresolvable dilemma. That's a triple redundant system telling you there's something potentially dangerous on the street ahead, and a judgment call has to be made. In this case it seems like those systems would more likely agree than not. A more realistic scenario might be when the camera is obstructed due to glare, or the lidar due to fog or whatever and they disagree about the state of things. Then yes some arbiter would have to make a judgment call. Sometimes it'll be wrong. Sometimes deadly wrong. But that's the case whether it had three inputs or two or just one, or or one camera in a stereo setup has dirt on it, or a bird poop on the windshield is misidentified, etc. Being able separate input noise and errors is part of the job of these systems, something that's made easier with different sensor types that can cross check each either.
- magicalhippo 3y ago
  > Better for safety to have conflicting inputs that require an arbiter, than a system that's confidently wrong on a single input and drives you at full speed into a 'Wile E. Coyote' wall painted to look like a tunnel. Reminded of the recent Japanese lunar probe that failed[1]. They relied on a radar ranging sensor to determine altitude, and when they flew over a large crater the sudden change in distance to ground caused the software to fail the radar sensor. This again meant it had to rely only the IMU, which has drift issues[2], causing it to believe it was just above ground when it was in fact way above. I'm thinking a camera looking down in combination with the radar would have been more resilient, as there would be less need to rely on hardcoded threshold values in order to determine when to fail the sensors. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JlUnOAiMm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JlUnOAiMm4 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system#Drift_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system#Dri...
  - lsaferite 3y ago
    Not having read anything on the failure, I'm surprised they wouldn't have other range finding methods. Like LIDAR actually, just not the LIDAR everyone thinks of. They have them on commercial drone packages. It's like a single beam LIDAR setup. Does better at long distance range finding than the mmWave Radar units. The mmW unit handles water better though. The engineers that built the JP lander are likely far smarter than I am and probably thought things through much better than my simple armchair observations.
    - magicalhippo 3y ago
      A single beam LIDAR would suffer the same problem. That is, the radar was accurate, the problem was the team hadn't foreseen the probe flying over such a deep crater, thus the threshold for failing the sensor in case of a sudden large change in apparent altitude was set too low. This is why I suggested a visual-based sensor, since it would be using a very different measuring scheme, and one which could also be used to cross-check the IMU data.
- donkeyd 3y ago
  > Better ... than a system that's confidently wrong If ChatGPT has taught us all anything, this should be it. It can be so confidently wrong while sounding believable, that I wouldn't be surprised if some kid has turned in completely hallucinated homework thinking it was a great essay.
the__alchemist 3y ago
I suspect you overestimate the computational or logical complexity of sensor fusion.