3 ms·

Why are you disagreeing with me while proving my point? The signal we get is enough. It is the processing that is still lacking. And that is why there should b

• dragonwriter 2y ago
  > Why are you disagreeing with me while proving my point? I'm not sure what your point is, but what you actually said overstates the case for visual detection. > The signal we get is enough. Sure, we know that with processing far beyond what we currently can replicate, it can at least just meet the minimum bar. > And that is why there should be benchmarks to be passed Is it? I would think there should be proof and validation no matter which pieces were demonstrated adequate and which have not yet been. But the thing is that we don't even know enough to make a set of benchmarks that can be tested that provide confidence, and we maybe won't until we've had the several systems that demonstrate that they work well enough in real conditions from which to generalize a minimum set of standards that can be verified prior to getting into real conditions. So we do supervised testing in progressively-less-limited real world conditions of each system until we get to that point.