6 ms·
While I don't think vision-only is hopeless (it works for human drivers) the cameras on Teslas are not at all reliable enough for FSD. They have little to no re
by Rohansi 1y ago
While I don't think vision-only is hopeless (it works for human drivers) the cameras on Teslas are not at all reliable enough for FSD. They have little to no redundancy and only the forward facing camera can (barely) clean itself. Even if they got their vision-only FSD to work nicely it'll need another hardware revision to resolve this.
- moogly 1y ago> While I don't think vision-only is hopeless (it works for human drivers) I guess you don't drive? You use more senses than just vision when driving a car.
- Rohansi 1y agoAnd which ones can't be replicated with hardware?
- moogly 1y agoAsk Musk; he's the one who claims that sensor fusion does not work.
- ndesaulniers 1y ago...taste?
- scrollaway 1y agoEven without getting out of the vision sense there are features of vision Tesla doesn’t properly try to replicate. Depth perception for example (it does DP very differently to humans). You also do use your ears when driving.
- gizajob 1y agoDeaf people can drive fine.
- vbezhenar 1y agoOne-eyed people are allowed to drive.
- scrollaway 1y agoWhat’s your point? I was answering a question, not making a statement about any disabilities.
- vbezhenar 1y agoMy point is that "hardware" depth perception is not necessary for successful driving. Just one camera should be enough, rest is algorithms.
- ModernMech 1y agoEyes are not cameras they are extensions of the brain. That people can drive with one eye is not a "proof of concept" that cars should be able to drive with one camera. You'll need a human brain to go along with it. Unfortunately for Tesla, they seem to be short on supply of those at the moment.
- rogerrogerr 1y agoSo your assertion is that a human with access to arbitrarily good camera feeds could not drive a car at level 5? That something magical is happening because the eyes are close topographically to the brain? Sounds implausible.
- ModernMech 1y agoHow does the human consume the arbitrarily good camera feeds? > That something magical is happening because the eyes are close topographically to the brain? It sounds to me like you have to study what eyes actually are. It's not about proximity or magic, they are a part of your brain, and we're only beginning to understand their complexities. Eyes are not just sensory organs, so the analogy to cameras is way off. They are able to discern edges, motion, color, and shapes, as well as correct errors before your brain even is even aware. In robotics, we only get this kind of information after the camera image has been sent through a perception pipeline, often incurring a round trip through some sort of AI and a GPU at this point. > Sounds implausible. Musk just spent billions of dollars and the better part of a decade trying to prove the conjecture that "cameras are sufficient", and now he's waving the white flag. So however implausible it sounds, it's now more implausible than ever that cameras alone are sufficient.
- dtj1123 1y agoOne eyed, deaf people can drive
- mlindner 1y agoTeslas have and use microphones.
- scrollaway 1y agoGp asked about specifically vision only approach. Vision only means no microphones, regardless of whether Tesla has any… What is up with hn today? Was there a mass stroke?
- rogerrogerr 1y ago“Vision-only” colloquially means no LIDAR and other expensive sensors, not the exclusion of microphones (which are hilariously cheap).
- rogerrogerr 1y agoBinocular depth perception stops being useful somewhere around 10 meters. Your brain is mostly driving using the “computed” depth perception based on the flat image it’s getting. Same way Tesla is getting a depth map. Provable by one-eyed people being able to drive just fine, as could you with one eye covered.
- tester756 1y agointuition?
- renewiltord 1y agoBut we allow deaf people to drive but not people who are entirely blind. This means vision is necessary and sufficient. The problem is clearly a question of the fidelity of the vision and our ability to slave a decision maker and mapper to it.
- bhaney 1y agoPersonally, I can smell a left turn signal from nearly three blocks away
- okr 1y agoThe spider crawling out of the back of the car mirror has seen things, that are far beyond i will ever experience visually!
- figassis 1y agoBehavioral and pattern analysis is always in full overdrive when I drive. I drive in Africa, people never follow rules, red lights at crossings mean go for bikers, when there are no lights you can't just give right of way, or you'll never move. When nearing intersections, people accelerate so they can cross before you, and it's a long line, and they know you have right of way, so they accelerate to scare you into stopping. Amateurs freeze and hold up the line for a very long time, usually until a traffic officer shows up to unblock (multiply this by every intersection). In order for you to get anywhere, you have to play the same game, and get close enough to the point where they aren't sure you'll stop, and will hit you and will have to pay. So often at crossings you're always in near misses and they realize you're not going to stop, so they do. Everyone is skilled enough to do this daily. Your senses, your risk analysis, your spider sense are fully overclocked most of the time. And then there are all the other crazy things that happen, like all the insane lane zig zagging people do, bikers our of nowhere et night with no lights, memorizing all the pot holes in all roads in the city bc they aren't illuminated at night so you can drive at 80-120km/h, etc. So no, it's not just your eyes. Lots of sensors, memory, processing, memory/mapping are required.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago> You use more senses than just vision when driving a car Deaf drivers (may include drivers playing loud music too) don't, unless they're somehow tasting the other vehicles.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y agoWe have these things called "inner ears." I'm pretty sure deaf people have them, too. Nature's accelerometers. I've had mine go bad, and it wasn't fun. Just sayin'...
- ndsipa_pomu 1y agoWere you unable to drive when your inner ears weren't functioning?
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y agoI guess so. I was unable to stand up.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y agoSounds horrible. I can understand that stopping you from cycling, but if you could have managed to sit in a car, would you have been able to drive it? I can imagine that inner ear issues can sometimes affect vision too as my wife suffered from positional vertigo for a while and I could see her eyes flicking rapidly when she was getting dizzy. (I did find a helpful YouTube video about a sequence of positions to put the sufferer through which basically helps to remove the otoliths from the ear canal).
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y agoIn my case, it was a brain tumor. Took a bit more than Lotus Position. It all came out OK, in the end, but it was touch-and-go for a while.
- terminalshort 1y agoYeah, but you can drive on vision alone. Deaf people are allowed to drive just the same as anyone else.
- asadotzler 1y agoIt's not just hearing. I can "feel" in the seat of my pants, the pull of the steering wheel, et. I have a vestibular system that knows bout relative velocities and changes which coordinates with my other senses, and more. This all allows me to take in far more than what my eyes see, or my ears hear and to build the correct intuitions and muscle memories to get good at driving and adapt to new driving environments.
- VerminOctopus1 1y agoSuch utter drivel. A camera is not the equivalent of human eyes and sensory processing, let alone an entire human being engaging with the physical world.
- Rohansi 1y agoThe best cameras are surely better than most peoples' eyes these days. Sensory processing is not matched, sure, but IMO how a human drives is more involved than it needs to be. We only have two eyes and they both look in the same direction. We need to continuously look around to track what's around us. It demands a lot of attention from us that we may not always have to spare, especially if we're distracted.
- rcxdude 1y ago>The best cameras are surely better than most peoples' eyes these days. Not on all metrics, especially not simultaneously. The dynamic range of human eyes, for example, is extremely high.
- Rohansi 1y agoThe front camera Tesla is using is very good with this. You can drive with the sun shining directly into it and it will still detect everything 99% of the time, at least with my older model 3. Way better than me stuck looking at the pavement directly in front the car. AFAIK there is also more than one front camera. Why would anyone try to do it all with one or two camera sensors like humans do it? It's important to remember that the cameras Tesla are using are optimized for everything but picture quality. They are not just taking flagship phone camera sensors and sticking them into cars. That's why their dashcam recordings look so bad (to us) if you've ever seen them.
- kivle 1y agoWell, Teslas use low cost consumer cameras. Not DSLRs. Bad framerate, bad resolution and bad dynamic range. Very far from human vision and easily blinded and completely washed out by sudden shifts in light.
- bkettle 1y ago> it works for human drivers Sure, for some definition of "works"... https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/deta...
- Rohansi 1y agoVision is almost certainly not the main issue with humans as drivers.
- NaomiLehman 1y agoit's one of the reasons.
- Rohansi 1y agoFor sure, but my phone camera sees better than I do. Cars can make use of better camera sensors and have more than two of them. You can't just extrapolate the conclusion that human vision bad = vision sensors bad.
- NaomiLehman 1y agowe can't conclude that LIDAR is better than a camera? Is it worth cutting the costs? LIDAR has everything that a camera has plus more.
- shpx 1y agoCameras are nowhere near the fidelity and responsiveness of human eyes.
- vbezhenar 1y agoI feel like our AI research at physical world falls so much behind language-level AI, that our reasoning might be clouded. Compare Boston Dynamics and cat. They are on the absolutely different levels for their bodies and their ability to manipulate their bodies. I have no doubts, that using cameras-only would absolutely work for AI cars, but at the same time I'm feel that this kind of AI is not there. And if we want autonomous cars, it might be possible, but we need to equip them with as much sensors as necessary, not setting any artificial boundaries.
- threatofrain 1y agoBut lidar is basically a cheat code, whether or not optical is sufficient. Why wait for end stage driving AI? Why not use cheat codes and wait for cheaper technology later?
- Rohansi 1y agoI honestly think Tesla is past the point where lidar would provide significant benefits. I've tried FSD for a month or two and it can see everything but just drives like an idiot. Lidar isn't going to help it merge properly, change lanes smoothly, take left turns at lights without blocking traffic, etc. Check out what the Tesla park assist visualization shows now. It's vision based and shows a 3D recreation of the world around the car. You can pan around to see what's there and how far away it is. It's fun to play around with in drive thrus, garages, etc. just to see what it sees.
- threatofrain 1y agoIt should help for disambiguating scenarios that lead to phantom stops or not stopping on time, which has killed Tesla drivers before, such as by driving full speed into the back of a truck with some glare.
- Rohansi 1y agoMaybe? I don't remember the cases but there is some confusion with autopilot (cruise control) vs. FSD sometimes. Autopilot is a completely different system and nobody should be surprised if it leads to crashes when misused.
- mbrochh 1y agoUh... why don't they put the cameras... into the car (it works for human drivers)???