4 ms·

Showing the camera footage from these vehicles (and the Uber ATG incident) causes a fallacy most people don’t even realize - eyes are way better than current ca

Showing the camera footage from these vehicles (and the Uber ATG incident) causes a fallacy most people don’t even realize - eyes are way better than current cameras. So you think visibility was worse than it is, things were further away and approaching more quickly, and so on. So people are inclined to look at the video and say it was clear no one could avoid that. Which is just an inditement of the sensor tech but unless you see the scene yourself or have other sensor data, it’s not so obvious.

mattmaroon 2y ago
I think you’re saying the fallacy is that Tesla cameras are as good as eyes. Is that accurate? If so I agree that that is a fallacy, they definitely are not as good as eyes, and I’d think anyone who drove a Tesla would agree.
- cinntaile 2y ago
  He says eyes are much better than cameras.
  - mattmaroon 2y ago
    I think that’s what he means but the verbiage implies the opposite. “causes a fallacy most people don’t even realize - eyes are way better than current cameras.” This implies “eyes are better than cameras” is a fallacy. But the rest of the comment makes me think you’re right.
    - plasticchris 2y ago
      Yeah that’s what I meant. The fallacy being that people assume the cameras are as good as their eyes, especially when looking at footage shot through them without any basis for comparison.
      - mattmaroon 2y ago
        I thought so, and yes, the resolution on them (at least as experienced while driving) is not high. They can see in several directions at once, so that’s good. It’s not hard to imagine a car having better visibility than a human with cameras. But I don’t think they do yet.
JohnFen 2y ago
> eyes are way better than current cameras. Strictly speaking, this is not at all true. Eyes are pretty bad at this, much worse than cameras have been for a long while. Vision, however, is much better. This is because of all of the postprocessing our brains do with the raw information our eyes put out before we actually "see" what our eyes are pointing at. But even that is full of errors (think optical illusions).
- plasticchris 2y ago
  It’s very true of the current automotive cameras. Just put them on a good display and look between the screen and reality. Source: I have done that.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    The raw image your eyes produce is full of literal holes where there is no image at all (it's often referred to as "like looking through a slice of swiss cheese"), and the rest is mostly out of focus. You don't see that because your brain does a ton of fixing up and filling in the blanks before you perceive things. Much of what you think you're seeing is actually your brain reconstructing things.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - plasticchris 2y ago
      Yes, and in looking between the real scene and the display these errors are present in both.
    - lawn 2y ago
      Another reason is that we refocus and move our eyes constantly, giving us a more clear picture.

mattmaroon 2y ago

I think you’re saying the fallacy is that Tesla cameras are as good as eyes. Is that accurate? If so I agree that that is a fallacy, they definitely are not as good as eyes, and I’d think anyone who drove a Tesla would agree.

cinntaile 2y ago
He says eyes are much better than cameras.
- mattmaroon 2y ago
  I think that’s what he means but the verbiage implies the opposite. “causes a fallacy most people don’t even realize - eyes are way better than current cameras.” This implies “eyes are better than cameras” is a fallacy. But the rest of the comment makes me think you’re right.
  - plasticchris 2y ago
    Yeah that’s what I meant. The fallacy being that people assume the cameras are as good as their eyes, especially when looking at footage shot through them without any basis for comparison.
    - mattmaroon 2y ago
      I thought so, and yes, the resolution on them (at least as experienced while driving) is not high. They can see in several directions at once, so that’s good. It’s not hard to imagine a car having better visibility than a human with cameras. But I don’t think they do yet.

JohnFen 2y ago

> eyes are way better than current cameras. Strictly speaking, this is not at all true. Eyes are pretty bad at this, much worse than cameras have been for a long while. Vision, however, is much better. This is because of all of the postprocessing our brains do with the raw information our eyes put out before we actually "see" what our eyes are pointing at. But even that is full of errors (think optical illusions).

plasticchris 2y ago
It’s very true of the current automotive cameras. Just put them on a good display and look between the screen and reality. Source: I have done that.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  The raw image your eyes produce is full of literal holes where there is no image at all (it's often referred to as "like looking through a slice of swiss cheese"), and the rest is mostly out of focus. You don't see that because your brain does a ton of fixing up and filling in the blanks before you perceive things. Much of what you think you're seeing is actually your brain reconstructing things.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - plasticchris 2y ago
    Yes, and in looking between the real scene and the display these errors are present in both.
  - lawn 2y ago
    Another reason is that we refocus and move our eyes constantly, giving us a more clear picture.