4 ms·

It‘s not just Musk. Most automobile manufacturers have maintained that they need to find a way to do it with cheap and pretty sensors.

by quonn 2y ago

juliushuijnk 2y ago
> have maintained that they need to find a way to do it with cheap If the goal is to make roads safer. Aiming for cheap is good, it means aiming for more people who can afford that safer car. If it's not safer than humans, it should not be on the road in the first place.
tgaj 2y ago
Theoretically if a human can drive a car using a pair of eyes connected to brain, it should be possible to do that using two cameras connected to some kind of image processing unit.
- fragmede 2y ago
  If we want the sell driving computer to be only possibly as good as a human. I can't see in the dark, can't see through fog, and have trouble with rain. Why is human visibility the bar to meet here?
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Oh and the sun. I get blinded when the sun is in my eyes at sunrise and sunset.
    - tgaj 2y ago
      And how many car accidents did you cause in your life? Probably still no a lot even with your flawed vision.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    Because we allow humans to drive, therefore if something can perform as well as a human it should be allowed. The bar is a floor, not a ceiling.
- itishappy 2y ago
  In theory. In practice neither the cameras nor processors available in cars function anywhere near human level.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    It's not even entirely true in theory. We use a lot of our senses when driving. Force feedback on the wheel. Sounds from the environment. Inertial senses. And our vision isn't fixed, its constantly moving. And yeah, as you mention, cameras don't really have the same level of range our eyes have and computers don't operate in the same way.
- knifie_spoonie 2y ago
  In practice humans aren't particularly safe drivers.
  - xdmr 2y ago
    Is that because their vision fails to provide the information necessary to drive safely? Or is it due to distraction and/or poor judgment? I don't actually know the answer to this, but I assume distraction/judgment is a bigger factor. I'm not a fan of the camera-only approach and think Tesla is making a mistake backing it due to path-dependence, but when we're _only_ talking about this is _broadly theoretical_ terms, I don't think they're wrong. The ideal autonomous driving agent is like a perfect monday morning quarterback who gets to look at every failure and say "see, what you should have done here was..." and it seems like it might well both have enough information and be able too see enough cases to meet some desirable standard of safety. In theory. In practice, maybe they just can't get enough accuracy or something.
    - ra7 2y ago
      > Is that because their vision fails to provide the information necessary to drive safely? In certain conditions, yes. Humans drive terribly in dark and low light, something lidar excels in.
      - tgaj 2y ago
        Still, millions of humans drive every night and only a miniscule percentage cause any accidents. So maybe we are not so bad at this.
        ra7 2y ago
        According to NHTSA, about half of all fatal crashes occur at night, even though only 25% of driving happens at nighttime. So yes, we are pretty bad at this.
    - tgaj 2y ago
      I totally agree, I think most accidents are caused by human nature (especially slow reaction time in specific conditions like being tired or drunk) and ignoring laws of physics (driving too fast). And some are just a pure bad luck (something/someone getting on the road right in front of the car).
- jdhwosnhw 2y ago
  Imagine that same reasoning applied to the car itself. Ugh, wheels?? Humans get around just fine bipedally, so cars should have legs too.
  - dawnerd 2y ago
    Explains the Tesla robot actually
- carbotaniuman 2y ago
  Theory isn't really all that applicable to this though - in theory nothing is stopping anyone from writing all code in assembly, but obviously that doesn't happen. I think more practically cars have adding driver assistance feature for a while now - more cameras, blind spot monitoring, ultrasound for parking, lane drift indicators. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that adding more sensors is helpful (but even the old adage of more data is better than less would probably say that).
  - tgaj 2y ago
    To be honest, it's possible that having too much data can only cause problems in quick decision-making. Any redundant data will only slow down processing pipelines.
- KeplerBoy 2y ago
  Sure, but why strive for that? We can have better than human perception by adding lidar and radar.
- ProblemFactory 2y ago
  > Theoretically it should be possible to do that using two cameras connected to some kind of image processing unit That "some kind of image processing unit" in humans has an awful lot of compute power and software. If you remove $100k of sensors but have to add $200k of compute to run more advanced computer vision software, then it's a bad tradeoff to use only cameras, even if in theory that software is possible.
Klaus23 2y ago
This is simply not true. Let's look at the best autonomous driving features available today, i.e. level 3: Mercedes Drive Pilot: Uses a lidar (and a dummy unit) up front. BMW Personal Pilot: Uses a lidar (and a dummy unit) up front Honda SENSING Elite: Uses 5! lidars They all use lidar, and some of the placement locations are downright hideous (Mercedes EQS). I think further development will require even more/better sensors, and manufacturers tend to agree on this point.
- asdasdsddd 2y ago
  What are the benchmarks that say Mercedes, BMW, and Honda have the best level 3 features.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Don't forget Blue Cruise from Ford.
    - Klaus23 2y ago
      Blue Cruise is level 2+, not 3, and does not rely on lidar.
  - Klaus23 2y ago
    I ignore the Chinese because it is difficult to get reliable English information. Apart from those, these are the only level 3 systems available, and level 3 is the most advanced system that private individuals can currently get their hands on. Have I missed any?
  - luos2 2y ago
    It's not a benchmark, but there is a youtube channel (Out of Spec) which tests these systems, and I think they also say Mercedes are the best in their "Hogback challenge". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK3NcHSH49Q&list=PLVa4b_Vn4gbBRwZoFf2rrenzUwsKU0jZk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK3NcHSH49Q&list=PLVa4b_Vn4g... Worth checking out, many cars are very bad.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Symmetry 2y ago
If you want conventional car utilization where the car sits in a parking spot most of the time then the extra cost from the lidars is much more of an issue than if you're operating a fleet that is acting as taxis most of the day.

It‘s not just Musk. Most automobile manufacturers have maintained that they need to find a way to do it with cheap and pretty sensors.

by quonn 2y ago

It‘s not just Musk. Most automobile manufacturers have maintained that they need to find a way to do it with cheap and pretty sensors.

juliushuijnk 2y ago

> have maintained that they need to find a way to do it with cheap If the goal is to make roads safer. Aiming for cheap is good, it means aiming for more people who can afford that safer car. If it's not safer than humans, it should not be on the road in the first place.

tgaj 2y ago

Theoretically if a human can drive a car using a pair of eyes connected to brain, it should be possible to do that using two cameras connected to some kind of image processing unit.

fragmede 2y ago
If we want the sell driving computer to be only possibly as good as a human. I can't see in the dark, can't see through fog, and have trouble with rain. Why is human visibility the bar to meet here?
- fragmede 2y ago
  Oh and the sun. I get blinded when the sun is in my eyes at sunrise and sunset.
  - tgaj 2y ago
    And how many car accidents did you cause in your life? Probably still no a lot even with your flawed vision.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  Because we allow humans to drive, therefore if something can perform as well as a human it should be allowed. The bar is a floor, not a ceiling.
itishappy 2y ago
In theory. In practice neither the cameras nor processors available in cars function anywhere near human level.
- vel0city 2y ago
  It's not even entirely true in theory. We use a lot of our senses when driving. Force feedback on the wheel. Sounds from the environment. Inertial senses. And our vision isn't fixed, its constantly moving. And yeah, as you mention, cameras don't really have the same level of range our eyes have and computers don't operate in the same way.
knifie_spoonie 2y ago
In practice humans aren't particularly safe drivers.
- xdmr 2y ago
  Is that because their vision fails to provide the information necessary to drive safely? Or is it due to distraction and/or poor judgment? I don't actually know the answer to this, but I assume distraction/judgment is a bigger factor. I'm not a fan of the camera-only approach and think Tesla is making a mistake backing it due to path-dependence, but when we're _only_ talking about this is _broadly theoretical_ terms, I don't think they're wrong. The ideal autonomous driving agent is like a perfect monday morning quarterback who gets to look at every failure and say "see, what you should have done here was..." and it seems like it might well both have enough information and be able too see enough cases to meet some desirable standard of safety. In theory. In practice, maybe they just can't get enough accuracy or something.
  - ra7 2y ago
    > Is that because their vision fails to provide the information necessary to drive safely? In certain conditions, yes. Humans drive terribly in dark and low light, something lidar excels in.
    - tgaj 2y ago
      Still, millions of humans drive every night and only a miniscule percentage cause any accidents. So maybe we are not so bad at this.
      - ra7 2y ago
        According to NHTSA, about half of all fatal crashes occur at night, even though only 25% of driving happens at nighttime. So yes, we are pretty bad at this.
  - tgaj 2y ago
    I totally agree, I think most accidents are caused by human nature (especially slow reaction time in specific conditions like being tired or drunk) and ignoring laws of physics (driving too fast). And some are just a pure bad luck (something/someone getting on the road right in front of the car).
jdhwosnhw 2y ago
Imagine that same reasoning applied to the car itself. Ugh, wheels?? Humans get around just fine bipedally, so cars should have legs too.
- dawnerd 2y ago
  Explains the Tesla robot actually
carbotaniuman 2y ago
Theory isn't really all that applicable to this though - in theory nothing is stopping anyone from writing all code in assembly, but obviously that doesn't happen. I think more practically cars have adding driver assistance feature for a while now - more cameras, blind spot monitoring, ultrasound for parking, lane drift indicators. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that adding more sensors is helpful (but even the old adage of more data is better than less would probably say that).
- tgaj 2y ago
  To be honest, it's possible that having too much data can only cause problems in quick decision-making. Any redundant data will only slow down processing pipelines.
KeplerBoy 2y ago
Sure, but why strive for that? We can have better than human perception by adding lidar and radar.
ProblemFactory 2y ago
> Theoretically it should be possible to do that using two cameras connected to some kind of image processing unit That "some kind of image processing unit" in humans has an awful lot of compute power and software. If you remove $100k of sensors but have to add $200k of compute to run more advanced computer vision software, then it's a bad tradeoff to use only cameras, even if in theory that software is possible.

Klaus23 2y ago

This is simply not true. Let's look at the best autonomous driving features available today, i.e. level 3: Mercedes Drive Pilot: Uses a lidar (and a dummy unit) up front. BMW Personal Pilot: Uses a lidar (and a dummy unit) up front Honda SENSING Elite: Uses 5! lidars They all use lidar, and some of the placement locations are downright hideous (Mercedes EQS). I think further development will require even more/better sensors, and manufacturers tend to agree on this point.

asdasdsddd 2y ago
What are the benchmarks that say Mercedes, BMW, and Honda have the best level 3 features.
- fragmede 2y ago
  Don't forget Blue Cruise from Ford.
  - Klaus23 2y ago
    Blue Cruise is level 2+, not 3, and does not rely on lidar.
- Klaus23 2y ago
  I ignore the Chinese because it is difficult to get reliable English information. Apart from those, these are the only level 3 systems available, and level 3 is the most advanced system that private individuals can currently get their hands on. Have I missed any?
- luos2 2y ago
  It's not a benchmark, but there is a youtube channel (Out of Spec) which tests these systems, and I think they also say Mercedes are the best in their "Hogback challenge". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK3NcHSH49Q&list=PLVa4b_Vn4gbBRwZoFf2rrenzUwsKU0jZk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK3NcHSH49Q&list=PLVa4b_Vn4g... Worth checking out, many cars are very bad.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Symmetry 2y ago

If you want conventional car utilization where the car sits in a parking spot most of the time then the extra cost from the lidars is much more of an issue than if you're operating a fleet that is acting as taxis most of the day.