3 ms·

It's because the sensor suite for lidar is expensive and HD cameras are basically a commodity at this point. So if your goal is to pump out $20k self driving c

It's because the sensor suite for lidar is expensive and HD cameras are basically a commodity at this point. So if your goal is to pump out $20k self driving cars, then you need cameras to be good enough. So the logic becomes "If humans can do it, so can cameras, otherwise we have no product, no promise."

breadwinner 2y ago
Cameras have poor dynamic range and can be easily blinded by bright surfaces. While it is true that humans do fine with only eyes, our eyes are significantly better than cameras. More importantly, expectations are higher when an automated system is driving the car. It is not sufficient if, in aggregate, self-driving cars have fewer accidents. If you lose a loved one in an accident where the accident could have been easily avoided if a human was driving, then you're not going to be mollified to hear that in aggregate, fewer people are being killed by self-driving cars! You'd be outraged to hear such a justification! The expectation therefore is that in each individual injury accident a human clearly could not have handled the situation any better. Self-driving cars have to be significantly better than humans to be accepted by society, and that means it has to have better-than-human levels of vision (which lidars provide).
- josephcsible 2y ago
  How many strangers' lives is a loved one's life worth? If your answer is anything other than "1", how does that square with other people having their own loved ones, and your loved ones being strangers to them?
  - breadwinner 2y ago
    Don't understand your point. Everyone's life is important, which is why I said: the expectation is that in each individual injury accident a human clearly could not have handled the situation any better. It is insufficient for self-driving cars to be as safe as, or even slightly better than human drivers. Which is why, better-than-human sensors are needed.
    - josephcsible 2y ago
      I'm saying that the only way "slightly better than human drivers" wouldn't be good enough is if some people's lives are worth more than others'.
sudosysgen 2y ago
I wish this myth would die. Anyone who picks up a camera would know that it isn't true, there are many things even very expensive cameras can't do that humans can. Specifically, the mix of high acuity when needed but wide angle, low-light movement performance, and tracking fast objects is something that only a camera system in the tens of thousands of dollars can do, and those are all relevant to driving.

breadwinner 2y ago

Cameras have poor dynamic range and can be easily blinded by bright surfaces. While it is true that humans do fine with only eyes, our eyes are significantly better than cameras. More importantly, expectations are higher when an automated system is driving the car. It is not sufficient if, in aggregate, self-driving cars have fewer accidents. If you lose a loved one in an accident where the accident could have been easily avoided if a human was driving, then you're not going to be mollified to hear that in aggregate, fewer people are being killed by self-driving cars! You'd be outraged to hear such a justification! The expectation therefore is that in each individual injury accident a human clearly could not have handled the situation any better. Self-driving cars have to be significantly better than humans to be accepted by society, and that means it has to have better-than-human levels of vision (which lidars provide).

josephcsible 2y ago
How many strangers' lives is a loved one's life worth? If your answer is anything other than "1", how does that square with other people having their own loved ones, and your loved ones being strangers to them?
- breadwinner 2y ago
  Don't understand your point. Everyone's life is important, which is why I said: the expectation is that in each individual injury accident a human clearly could not have handled the situation any better. It is insufficient for self-driving cars to be as safe as, or even slightly better than human drivers. Which is why, better-than-human sensors are needed.
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    I'm saying that the only way "slightly better than human drivers" wouldn't be good enough is if some people's lives are worth more than others'.

sudosysgen 2y ago

I wish this myth would die. Anyone who picks up a camera would know that it isn't true, there are many things even very expensive cameras can't do that humans can. Specifically, the mix of high acuity when needed but wide angle, low-light movement performance, and tracking fast objects is something that only a camera system in the tens of thousands of dollars can do, and those are all relevant to driving.