4 ms·

> I don't see any evidence to suggest the modern model that Tesla has developed for their vision system is their limiting factor in the slightest to reach L4/L5

> I don't see any evidence to suggest the modern model that Tesla has developed for their vision system is their limiting factor in the slightest to reach L4/L5 For one, frame rate and processing rate on human eyes is way higher than cameras. Dynamic range is another. Also, Cruise and Waymo are some of the only companies that have hard internal data / ability to simulate how well their safety drivers do, and in the very same scenario what their software driver will do. Without LiDAR you can't build that simulation, and once you have that data if you continue to use HD Maps and LiDAR there's probably a good reason. > Dogs jump into the road in front of cars all the time and get killed, and kids get endangered at school bus crossings. That's a reality of life that robotaxis do not need to solve. Robotaxis need to avoid any accident that a human would be able to avoid. > IR and thermal sensing are unnecessary if the bar is human level See, you could say this if you had some data that showed that incidents per X miles (when the vehicle is driving at night) is sufficiently low, + if the software passes some contrived scenarios to gut-check its ability to see in the dark with the necessary reliability. But you don't have that data, do you? Someone has it though :) and I'd argue regulators should have it too.

bangaladore 2y ago
> For one, frame rate and processing rate on human eyes is way higher than cameras. I don't think it's exciting to say that you must have theoretical parity with something to use it for this use case. Tesla's solution monitors ~6? cameras at once with accurate depth in each. That's 6x more views than a human can see. I wish people would stop comparing apples to oranges. > Robotaxis need to avoid any accident that a human would be able to avoid. I never said anything to the contrary. Animals get hit all the time, not just because a human wasn't paying attention.
- kajecounterhack 2y ago
  > Tesla's solution monitors ~6? cameras at once with accurate depth in each No, the depth is estimated. It's not accurate, at least not in the way you need for L4. > I never said anything to the contrary. Animals get hit all the time, not just because a human wasn't paying attention. I was just clarifying what the bar is. The bar is that avoidable accidents need to be avoided. Nobody will get mad if a plane crashes due to unavoidable circumstances (freak accident where two engines go out due to bird strikes or something). People will stop flying in the plane when it becomes clear that the airline is not doing everything it can to avoid fatalities.

bangaladore 2y ago

> For one, frame rate and processing rate on human eyes is way higher than cameras. I don't think it's exciting to say that you must have theoretical parity with something to use it for this use case. Tesla's solution monitors ~6? cameras at once with accurate depth in each. That's 6x more views than a human can see. I wish people would stop comparing apples to oranges. > Robotaxis need to avoid any accident that a human would be able to avoid. I never said anything to the contrary. Animals get hit all the time, not just because a human wasn't paying attention.

kajecounterhack 2y ago
> Tesla's solution monitors ~6? cameras at once with accurate depth in each No, the depth is estimated. It's not accurate, at least not in the way you need for L4. > I never said anything to the contrary. Animals get hit all the time, not just because a human wasn't paying attention. I was just clarifying what the bar is. The bar is that avoidable accidents need to be avoided. Nobody will get mad if a plane crashes due to unavoidable circumstances (freak accident where two engines go out due to bird strikes or something). People will stop flying in the plane when it becomes clear that the airline is not doing everything it can to avoid fatalities.