6 ms·
How can you say camera only navigation won’t work with such finality when humans manage just fine every day! You literally have an existence proof of it workin
by FL33TW00D 8mo ago
How can you say camera only navigation won’t work with such finality when humans manage just fine every day!
You literally have an existence proof of it working.
- kleton 8mo agoIt would be possible to build an ornithopter, evidenced by the existence of avians, but it turned out the easiest ways to make flying machines were otherwise.
- fooker 8mo ago> easiest This is the keyword here, just because the other approach is harder does not mean it is impossible. It's a decent gamble to try and do things the hard way if it is possible to be deployed on cheaper/smaller hardware (eg: no lidars, just cameras).
- fancyfredbot 8mo agoIs it still a decent gamble after you've been trying (and failing) for a decade, and numerous well funded competitors are going the easy way, and when there is huge upside to being first, and when the value of FSD easily covers the rapidly falling cost of LIDAR? No. It's not a good idea. It's not a good gamble. It's stupid, and the engineers can see it's stupid. A lot of them have quit, reducing the very slim chances of it working even further.
- FL33TW00D 8mo agoI like the comparison, but with aviation on a fundamental level we made it simpler (removing actuation), not added more (senses we dont need)
- javawizard 8mo agoJet engines do not strike me as being inherently simpler than muscles, not by a long shot. They're still the best way we know of going about the business of building a flying machine, for various reasons.
- rightbyte 8mo agoPiston engines surely are more complex than jet engines though? Which replaced the "flapping engines".
- readmodifywrite 8mo agoThey are not. Turbine engines require much higher quality manufacturing and tolerances and operate at much higher speeds and pressures. There is more to it than the perceived number of moving parts.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- jeremysalwen 8mo agoI'm not sure I agree. I think just having wings that flex a bit is mechanically simpler than having an additional rotating propellor. After all, rotating axles are so hard to evolve they never almost never show up in nature at a macro scale. Sort of a perfect analogy to lidar actually. We create a new approach to solve the problem in a more efficient way, that evolution couldn't reach in billions of years
- adrian_b 8mo agoRotating axles have not evolved in animals not because they were complex, but because any part of an animal requires permanent connections with the other parts, not only for the supply with energy but also for the continuous repairing that is required by any living body, to avoid death. Artificial machines rely on spare parts manufactured elsewhere, which are used by external agents to replace the worn out parts. For an animal to have wheels, it would have to grow wheels in some part of the body, periodically, then use its limbs to detach the wheels and attach them on the axles, after removing the old wheels. This is something sufficiently complex to be extremely unlikely to appear from evolution. Even this huge complication would be enough only for passive wheels. For active wheels there exists no suitable motor, as the rotational motors with ionic currents are suitable only for the size of a bacteria. All bigger living beings use contractile motors, which cannot be used for a rotation of unlimited angle. So active wheels would also need a different kind of motor, which can work without a solid connection between the 2 moving parts. The artificial motors of this kind use either electromagnetic forces or fluid expansion due to temperature or pressure variation. Both would be very difficult to evolve by a living being, though electric fish and bombardier beetles show some possible paths.
- dgxyz 8mo agoI fall on my butt all the time.
- tjpnz 8mo agoBecause I want better?
- rswail 8mo agoBecause FSD driving not navigation is going to be held (rightly) to a much higher standard than human driving. Humans are fallible and we have other sensors, like hearing, or touch (through feedback on the steering wheel) that are also involved in driving. We already have other sensors that are not vision that work with us when driving like ABS and electronic stability. The other reason it's dumb is that adding LIDAR and proper sensor fusion makes things better and the cost of LIDAR is rapidly dropping as its installed across new fleets in CN and elsewhere.
- backscratches 8mo agoYeah and we should replace the wheels with legs. every other company disagrees with musk, putting alternate sensors on even low end cars.
- plomme 8mo agoBoth the vision and cognition hardware in humans are vastly superior, and don't get me started on the software. I never understood why they would choose to fight with "one hand behind your back". More sensors = more better
- SPICLK2 8mo agoTechnology can't compete with how easy it is to make more human-based navigation devices ;-)
- vjvjvjvjghv 8mo agoThe safety record of humans is not so great. They tend to fail in snow, ice, fog, rain and at night. We should be aiming a little higher. I don’t think it makes sense to limit yourself while you are still figuring out what really works. You should go with a maximum of sensors and once it works, you can see what can be left out.
- sejje 8mo agoYeah, but even if the safety level was 10% better, let's say--nobody would accept that rate. It wouldn't get adopted, we wouldn't be happy to save those lives. People would be outraged. I think it's got something to do with an innate belief to self-determination. It's fine if I make a mistake to kill myself, and it's not fine if someone else does. It's super not fine if someone dies at the hands of a rich person's technology. Outrage, lawsuits, "justice."
- hobofan 8mo ago~1.2 million global deaths per year due to motor vehicle accidents say otherwise.
- sejje 8mo agoActually, that's the standard we're all talking about. Nearly everyone is totally fine with human-caused traffic deaths. Nobody wants to ban human drivers at that rate of death. But if FSD had the same rate, people would be losing it.
- WA 8mo agoEyes have higher dynamic range and eyes don't freeze below 0°C. You can also put on sunglasses for even more weather-related adjustments.
- brk 8mo agoWhile I am in the camp that believes camera-only FSD won't succeed, your comment isn't entirely accurate. CCD and CMOS sensors can easily work in sub-freezing temperatures with various kinds of heating. There are 10's of millions of surveillance cameras installed outdoors in sub-freezing climates that work fine. Cameras also have moveable IR cut filters, which is analogous to your sunglasses example. Human eyes do have greater dynamic range in the visible light spectrum, but solid state sensors can commonly interpret light above 1000nm, and of course you can do thermal/IR imagers to provide optical sensing of wavelengths outside of what a human can see. Sensor technology relative to the human eye isn't what is holding FSD back.
- sonofhans 8mo agoThis is commonly said but trivially falsifiable — a blind human crosses the street better than a Tesla. Eyesight isn’t the thing. Humans have a persistent mental model of the world, and of the physics that drive it. Our eyes only check in every now and then to keep our model up to date. Our ears and sense of touch do a lot of work in walking and driving, too. Trying to narrow it all down to vision is silly.
- sejje 8mo agoDeaf people drive. I knew a guy with no arms who drove with his prosthetic hooks. Of course he can feel vibrations and things through his ass, but so could the car if they wanted. Do they use accelerometer data? (I don't know the answer to that) Do they have ABS sensors that can detect wheel lockup/speed status? Because I don't. I believe I can drive a car to the legal standard, remotely, with a good enough camera array.
- sonofhans 8mo agoYou might be able to but again, that has little to do with vision and much to do with your persistent and correct mental model of the world.
- devnullbrain 8mo ago> Do they have ABS sensors that can detect wheel lockup/speed status? Because I don't. You should fix that. Go out on a rainy day and slam the brakes hard enough for it to kick in. There's an obvious vibration and knowing what it feels like might save your life.
- poulpy123 8mo agoBecause we can't install lidars on our heads
- lateforwork 8mo agoHumans have cameras (eyes) + AGI. Cars have to compensate with LiDARs and other sensors that humans don't.
- p_j_w 8mo agoWe don’t drive with just our eyes, we also drive with our brains.