3 ms·
>> the future there will be video-capable models, which means they can understand and interpret motion and physics. Videos may not suffice. Videos are 2d, wit
by sandworm101 3y ago
>> the future there will be video-capable models, which means they can understand and interpret motion and physics.
Videos may not suffice. Videos are 2d, with 3d aspects being inferred from that 2d data, which is an issue for autonomous driving based on cameras. A proper model for AI training would be 3d scans rather than videos. The best data set would be a combination of video and 3d scanning. Self-driving cars which might combine video with radar/laser scanning may one day provide such a data set.
There is talk of a 3d version of Google streetview, one using a pair of cameras to allow true VR viewing. That might also be good training data as it will capture, in 3d, may street scenes as they unfold.
- mattnewton 3y agoI’ve actually been fairly impressed with how far monocular depth estimation has come in a few years. I think that it should not be relied upon in self driving cars because they need closer to 100% accuracy and also almost no latency, and the SoTA ones are too slow to be run every frame currently. Not only that but it’s a life-or-death situation where cutting on accuracy % to save BoM costs seems ridiculous to me. But in a higher-acceptable-latency, lower-risk environment like this, I am actually quite bullish on camera alone methods. Video understanding has come a long way.