5 ms·

Human bicameral driven cars are unreliable too, but FSD is more reliable. And more reliable, with way more data than any competing technologies. Using vision f

by maxlin 1y ago

Human bicameral driven cars are unreliable too, but FSD is more reliable. And more reliable, with way more data than any competing technologies. Using vision for driving is something that has worked for as long as cars have existed. Trying to push some "millimeter precision" solution with unproven feature set and prohibitive hardware accessibility is just asking for no real safety improvements and just more lives lost. Cheers.

Joel_Mckay 1y ago
It is true most humans can not track more than 5 objects concurrently. However, lidar data sets tend to produce sparse unambiguous point cloud data that is a lot more feasible to process. For example, a picture/reflection of a road on a bus is not a viable option with 3D data. Cheers =3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
- maxlin 1y ago
  Adding some stat of x things tracked adding top of your stat of "millimeters" really shows the level you're arguing here. Real world doesn't care about exact stats on some simply enumerable attributes, but adaptability. You might see 10 bisons but will instantly react to a scorpion in middle of them in your vision. In any case. Trying to argue against vision even if LIDAR hypothetically was better (it isn't) would just lead to more deaths, maybe at best shielding the rich driving in cities. FSD's stats don't lie :|
  - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
    My point was LIDAR data removes the ambiguity of camera derived data, is not fooled by featureless area ambiguity, and it is computationally easier to handle sparse data. Many high-end multi-beam lidar also embed things like basic Bicycle and Pedestrian object detection in the sensor front end. Things have improved significantly with sensors, but the risk is never 0. The rate of death doesn't really override an expectation of product safety, and humans understanding other humans intent. Have a wonderful day =3
    - maxlin 1y ago
      Fragmentation of results removing instead of increasing ambiguity doesn't pass the smell check, neither isn't it not something exactly against the leading FSD engineers have commented on the issue while they were removing other non-uniform sensors, even disabling existing ones entirely in cars. Trying to claim some entirely different stack in some third party LIDAR tower's own processing is somehow "beneficial" sounds like a project manager who thinks adding engineers equates to linearly faster progress. Just no. On a slight tangent though, I recommend reading about Tesla's vertical integration. It's not something any other company has managed to get implemented so deep in automotive, which makes it quite incomparable in some aspects where others can't adapt even if they wanted to.
      - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
        Admittedly, I only have limited out-of-date knowledge from integrating iBeo, hokuyo, and SiCK lidar models (way better models out now.) Yet in general, the SLAM algorithms tended to use optical Odometry, pose recovery, and point-cloud data. Then extrapolated the projected surface using camera data within a GPU accelerated OpenCV layer. It does require a proper global shutter machine vision camera (high fps / no smear), but does work fairly well under ideal conditions. The winners of the Darpa grand challenge documented the methods in detail, and several OpenCV books cite the work as a student project. Let me know if you have trouble finding the projects. =3
        maxlin 1y ago
        gluing together third party stacks like there's no tomorrow doesn't make you better evaluating how a vision-only ML model with limited, yet uniquely hardware-accelerated, one-task actual real life, real-time ML model running right now would integrated with foreign data, especially as the actual relevant engineers have directly talked against such things. It might make you headstrong in believing against something that'd be easier to see the core sensibility of if you weren't so invested in just a specific corner/angle though. I've avoided working a work project involving LIDAR scanning before, even back then the hellishness of the hardware was a large factor. I wouldn't mind playing around with a Jetson Nano though.
mdorazio 1y ago
> FSD is more reliable Citation needed. And not Tesla’s typical lying with shitty statistics data (fun fact: most car accidents do not happen in places where FSD is commonly used). Also, vision-only systems work great… if they’re backed by strong intelligence.
- Joel_Mckay 1y ago
  Only cameras? I respectfully disagree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQJL3htsDyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQJL3htsDyQ
  - maxlin 1y ago
    Your previous link was of that old BBC vision test, comparing being safe from danger to being able to see obviously irrelevant details of a video. And now you link that debunked Mark Rober video that literally doesn't even have FSD turned on, while giving the most ridiculous free wins to LIDAR. Talk about writing the tests for the exact limits of a specific system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhX_fgekpk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhX_fgekpk0 You're really running out of steam :D
    - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
      Kind of sus, but it is consistent with other reported incidents including at least 1 fatality with FSD. https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/07/business/nhtsa-tesla-smart-summon-probe https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/07/business/nhtsa-tesla-smart-su... Best of luck =3
      - maxlin 1y ago
        "Consistent" comparing a video with a literal billboard of a road in the middle of a road to real life? With the entire FSD feature turned off in the video by the way :D ? And one fatality with the most dangerous general form of transportation we have? And an article about a fancy pants 5 miles a hour park retrieval feature bending a few posts as if it was relevant? Dude I don't need luck, I could roll ten D12 ones in a row and win
sorcerer-mar 1y ago
> Human bicameral driven cars are unreliable too, but FSD is more reliable. You do not have the data necessary[0] to substantiate this claim. [0] Accidents per mile controlled for at least vintage of car and driving conditions
- maxlin 1y ago
  I do have the data necessary[0] to substantiate this claim. And no, I'm not going down listening in the rabbit hole of people trying to poke pin prick holes in to a safety margin bigger than a Gigafactory. [0] https://insideevs.com/news/720730/tesla-autopilot-crash-data-2024q1/ https://insideevs.com/news/720730/tesla-autopilot-crash-data...
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    1. Autopilot is not FSD 2. Autopilot, being a typical ASAD, is used exclusively on highways and in conditions where typical ASADs work reliably Weird to brag about being unwilling to apply even first order criticality to a press release but you do you. Thank you for reaffirming that in fact you do not have the data required to substantiate your claim.
    - maxlin 1y ago
      As I said, I'm not going down the rabbit hole. You go ahead and drive right in to the fallen tree in the middle of the road as you so vehemently argue it's not there.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        I think you should consider reasoning about reality in real terms instead of offloading to metaphors that, by design, don’t add any more information to the discussion than your own conclusions. By the way, it’s a “binocular” system. “Bicameral” refers to a design for institutions like legislatures.
queenkjuul 1y ago
I didn't know Teslas come with a House of Lords
- Joel_Mckay 1y ago
  Probable, based on the cyber truck build... lol =3

by maxlin 1y ago

Joel_Mckay 1y ago

It is true most humans can not track more than 5 objects concurrently. However, lidar data sets tend to produce sparse unambiguous point cloud data that is a lot more feasible to process. For example, a picture/reflection of a road on a bus is not a viable option with 3D data. Cheers =3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

maxlin 1y ago
Adding some stat of x things tracked adding top of your stat of "millimeters" really shows the level you're arguing here. Real world doesn't care about exact stats on some simply enumerable attributes, but adaptability. You might see 10 bisons but will instantly react to a scorpion in middle of them in your vision. In any case. Trying to argue against vision even if LIDAR hypothetically was better (it isn't) would just lead to more deaths, maybe at best shielding the rich driving in cities. FSD's stats don't lie :|
- Joel_Mckay 1y ago
  My point was LIDAR data removes the ambiguity of camera derived data, is not fooled by featureless area ambiguity, and it is computationally easier to handle sparse data. Many high-end multi-beam lidar also embed things like basic Bicycle and Pedestrian object detection in the sensor front end. Things have improved significantly with sensors, but the risk is never 0. The rate of death doesn't really override an expectation of product safety, and humans understanding other humans intent. Have a wonderful day =3
  - maxlin 1y ago
    Fragmentation of results removing instead of increasing ambiguity doesn't pass the smell check, neither isn't it not something exactly against the leading FSD engineers have commented on the issue while they were removing other non-uniform sensors, even disabling existing ones entirely in cars. Trying to claim some entirely different stack in some third party LIDAR tower's own processing is somehow "beneficial" sounds like a project manager who thinks adding engineers equates to linearly faster progress. Just no. On a slight tangent though, I recommend reading about Tesla's vertical integration. It's not something any other company has managed to get implemented so deep in automotive, which makes it quite incomparable in some aspects where others can't adapt even if they wanted to.
    - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
      Admittedly, I only have limited out-of-date knowledge from integrating iBeo, hokuyo, and SiCK lidar models (way better models out now.) Yet in general, the SLAM algorithms tended to use optical Odometry, pose recovery, and point-cloud data. Then extrapolated the projected surface using camera data within a GPU accelerated OpenCV layer. It does require a proper global shutter machine vision camera (high fps / no smear), but does work fairly well under ideal conditions. The winners of the Darpa grand challenge documented the methods in detail, and several OpenCV books cite the work as a student project. Let me know if you have trouble finding the projects. =3
      - maxlin 1y ago
        gluing together third party stacks like there's no tomorrow doesn't make you better evaluating how a vision-only ML model with limited, yet uniquely hardware-accelerated, one-task actual real life, real-time ML model running right now would integrated with foreign data, especially as the actual relevant engineers have directly talked against such things. It might make you headstrong in believing against something that'd be easier to see the core sensibility of if you weren't so invested in just a specific corner/angle though. I've avoided working a work project involving LIDAR scanning before, even back then the hellishness of the hardware was a large factor. I wouldn't mind playing around with a Jetson Nano though.

mdorazio 1y ago

> FSD is more reliable Citation needed. And not Tesla’s typical lying with shitty statistics data (fun fact: most car accidents do not happen in places where FSD is commonly used). Also, vision-only systems work great… if they’re backed by strong intelligence.

Joel_Mckay 1y ago
Only cameras? I respectfully disagree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQJL3htsDyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQJL3htsDyQ
- maxlin 1y ago
  Your previous link was of that old BBC vision test, comparing being safe from danger to being able to see obviously irrelevant details of a video. And now you link that debunked Mark Rober video that literally doesn't even have FSD turned on, while giving the most ridiculous free wins to LIDAR. Talk about writing the tests for the exact limits of a specific system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhX_fgekpk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhX_fgekpk0 You're really running out of steam :D
  - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
    Kind of sus, but it is consistent with other reported incidents including at least 1 fatality with FSD. https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/07/business/nhtsa-tesla-smart-summon-probe https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/07/business/nhtsa-tesla-smart-su... Best of luck =3
    - maxlin 1y ago
      "Consistent" comparing a video with a literal billboard of a road in the middle of a road to real life? With the entire FSD feature turned off in the video by the way :D ? And one fatality with the most dangerous general form of transportation we have? And an article about a fancy pants 5 miles a hour park retrieval feature bending a few posts as if it was relevant? Dude I don't need luck, I could roll ten D12 ones in a row and win

sorcerer-mar 1y ago

> Human bicameral driven cars are unreliable too, but FSD is more reliable. You do not have the data necessary[0] to substantiate this claim. [0] Accidents per mile controlled for at least vintage of car and driving conditions

maxlin 1y ago
I do have the data necessary[0] to substantiate this claim. And no, I'm not going down listening in the rabbit hole of people trying to poke pin prick holes in to a safety margin bigger than a Gigafactory. [0] https://insideevs.com/news/720730/tesla-autopilot-crash-data-2024q1/ https://insideevs.com/news/720730/tesla-autopilot-crash-data...
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  1. Autopilot is not FSD 2. Autopilot, being a typical ASAD, is used exclusively on highways and in conditions where typical ASADs work reliably Weird to brag about being unwilling to apply even first order criticality to a press release but you do you. Thank you for reaffirming that in fact you do not have the data required to substantiate your claim.
  - maxlin 1y ago
    As I said, I'm not going down the rabbit hole. You go ahead and drive right in to the fallen tree in the middle of the road as you so vehemently argue it's not there.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      I think you should consider reasoning about reality in real terms instead of offloading to metaphors that, by design, don’t add any more information to the discussion than your own conclusions. By the way, it’s a “binocular” system. “Bicameral” refers to a design for institutions like legislatures.

queenkjuul 1y ago

I didn't know Teslas come with a House of Lords

Joel_Mckay 1y ago
Probable, based on the cyber truck build... lol =3