4 ms·

What I find mindbogglingly ridiculous is how emotionally charged all of the "the system must include LIDAR" proponents are. It seems to suggest otherwise is per

What I find mindbogglingly ridiculous is how emotionally charged all of the "the system must include LIDAR" proponents are. It seems to suggest otherwise is perceived as nothing but a coldly calculated cost cutting measure. None of the arguments I come up against are anything but a surface level "well duh, intuitively more sensors equals more better" along with a litany of "you must like murdering babies". We do not have autonomous systems that can deal with the kinds of problems that human drivers currently deal with, which as I illustrated, is an infinity of embodied problems based on the entirety of our lives spent interacting with our physical environment. My intuitions tell me that in order to have a machine that can make human-like decisions that it needs to have that exact same kind of embodied experience, that is to have interacted with the physical environment in the same manner as a human, which suggests to me that perhaps an android is the way forward. Then once the autonomous system is extracted from the android and placed in a car it can be further trained on additional sensors, like how a human driver can take the input of LIDAR.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
donkeyd 3y ago
> What I find mindbogglingly ridiculous is how emotionally charged all of the "the system must include LIDAR" proponents are. > None of the arguments I come up against are anything but a surface level "well duh, intuitively more sensors equals more better" along with a litany of "you must like murdering babies". A bit pot blaming the kettle there. The thing is, the 'vision is enough' crowd often manages to pick a single use case, like seeing the difference between cardboard and plywood, that has nothing to do with Lidar and then asking, rhetorically, how Lidar would help with that. By opening a discussion in such a disingenuous way, you provoke the emotional response you seem to dislike. If you want to have an actual discussion, maybe start by asking a genuine question. > in order to have a machine that can make human-like decisions Honestly, I don't think many people want it to make human-like decisions. We want it to make much, much better decisions. By your standard, we should just put two camera's on top that rotate on a platform that can only move about 180 degrees both ways. Also, remove radar and ultrasonics, because humans don't have those either. I can't give you decent arguments for using Lidar. I'm not in that field, so I can only return my own gut feeling in response to yours and I honestly don't think that has any value.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  If you want to have an actual discussion, maybe start by asking a genuine question. Go back and look at the comment that I was responding to… Also, re-read the comment I wrote that you responded to and then re-read your response…

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

donkeyd 3y ago

> What I find mindbogglingly ridiculous is how emotionally charged all of the "the system must include LIDAR" proponents are. > None of the arguments I come up against are anything but a surface level "well duh, intuitively more sensors equals more better" along with a litany of "you must like murdering babies". A bit pot blaming the kettle there. The thing is, the 'vision is enough' crowd often manages to pick a single use case, like seeing the difference between cardboard and plywood, that has nothing to do with Lidar and then asking, rhetorically, how Lidar would help with that. By opening a discussion in such a disingenuous way, you provoke the emotional response you seem to dislike. If you want to have an actual discussion, maybe start by asking a genuine question. > in order to have a machine that can make human-like decisions Honestly, I don't think many people want it to make human-like decisions. We want it to make much, much better decisions. By your standard, we should just put two camera's on top that rotate on a platform that can only move about 180 degrees both ways. Also, remove radar and ultrasonics, because humans don't have those either. I can't give you decent arguments for using Lidar. I'm not in that field, so I can only return my own gut feeling in response to yours and I honestly don't think that has any value.

williamcotton 3y ago
If you want to have an actual discussion, maybe start by asking a genuine question. Go back and look at the comment that I was responding to… Also, re-read the comment I wrote that you responded to and then re-read your response…