4 ms·

Why make things more complicated than they need to be? Humans don't have lidar and we are the only intelligence that can reliably drive. Lidar just seems like f

by bko 8mo ago

Why make things more complicated than they need to be? Humans don't have lidar and we are the only intelligence that can reliably drive. Lidar just seems like feature engineering, which has proven to be a dead end in most other AI applications (bitter lesson). https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~eunsol/courses/data/bitter_lesson.pdf https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~eunsol/courses/data/bitter_lesson...

afavour 8mo ago
Self driving cars are not equipped with human brains so this doesn’t really make sense. “We should achieve self driving cars via replicating the human brain” strikes me as an incredibly inefficient and difficult way to solve the problem.
- sebastos 8mo ago
  Then you deeply underestimate how difficult the problem is, and deeply misunderstand where all the effort has been spent in developing autonomous vehicles.
  - afavour 8mo ago
    If all the effort has been spent in trying to replicate the human brain then I am comfortable saying that is a mistake. We have a tool that can tell with great accuracy how far away an object is. The suggestion that we should ignore it and rely on cameras that have to guess it because “that’s how humans work” is absurd, frankly.
    - sebastos 8mo ago
      Before you can learn how far away an object is, you must decide: which laser return corresponds to which object? In fact, what counts as an object? Where does a tree stop and become a fallen tree branch? Is that object moving towards me? Is the apparent velocity of this point represent the fact that the object is moving, or that it's rotating, or that it's flexing, or dividing, or all 4? Is that object moving towards me but that's ok because it's a car that's going to stay in its lane? What's a lane? What's my laser return for where the lane is? Should I stop at this intersection? What's my laser return for whether the light is red? Am I in the blind spot of the car in front of me? Is he about to shift into my lane because he doesn't see me? What laser return do I get to tell me whether his indicator is on? The problem of understanding what is happening in front of you while driving is preposterously more complicated than just a point cloud of distances. That is .01% of the problem. To solve the remaining 99.99%, you need interpretation of photons and sound waves into a semantic understanding that gives you predictive power to guess how the physical world will evolve and avoid breaking the rules of the road. Show me a mechanized way of understanding the causes of how the physical structure of the world is about to evolve, and I'll show you something that is imitating a human brain, however poorly. The cameras give you _plenty_ of data to determine 3D structure, at a higher resolution than the laser, without being emissive, for cheaper. It's a completely reasonable approach to focus your limited computational hardware on interpreting the data you have instead of adding more modalities with their own limitations that (according to nature) are demonstrably unnecessary. The world is more complicated than slogans and pitchforks and Elon Bad.
    - stevenhuang 8mo ago
      People get into accidents not because they don't know with great accuracy how far away an object is. They get into accidents because they make bad decisions and get distracted. If AI makes better decisions and don't get distracted, the amount of accidents will already be greatly reduced compared to humans. Having lidar in addition to cameras will be of marginal benefit (but a benefit to be sure) when you realize what is actually important: proper modeling of the environment. And for this, cameras are better at providing than lidar, so you still will want cameras anyways. The focus on lidar is really a red herring. You merely push the computational budget you have to understanding a point cloud instead of vision. You're back to square 1 of "how can I properly model the environment given this sensory modality". This is the part that essentially needs human level understanding of the world that you're missing. As the other commenter says, you deeply misunderstand the problem.
thunky 8mo ago
> Why make things more complicated than they need to be? Humans don't have lidar and we are the only intelligence that can reliably drive. Because we want self driving cars to be safer than human driven cars. If humans had built in lidar we would use it when driving.
- bko 8mo ago
  Read the comment again. It's not that vision is "good enough", it's that feature engineering doesn't work
Analemma_ 8mo ago
This knee-jerk reply is old and tired, and the counterarguments are well-trod at this point. Even if cameras-only can build a car that’s as good as humans, why should we settle for “as good as“ humans, who cause 40,000 fatalities a year in the US? If we can do better than humans with more advanced sensors, we are practically morally obligated to do that.
- xpe 8mo ago
  Yes! The smart and nuanced panoply of replies to the GP are a wonderful counterbalance to people "just saying things that pop into their head" -- which is unfortunately how I view a lot of human speech nowadays :/
- stevenhuang 8mo ago
  I would bet a large portion of fatalities is from distracted/bad driving, not that human sight was insufficient. Phrased a different way, I would expect lidar to help marginally, but it is safer driving in general that will bring down fatalities. This could be done with cameras.
elicash 8mo ago
Don't cars already use a ton of sensors that don't reproduce human senses and ways of doing things?
a_better_world 8mo ago
> we are the only intelligence that can reliably drive. Science would like to point out that rats also can learn to drive https://theconversation.com/im-a-neuroscientist-who-taught-rats-to-drive-their-joy-suggests-how-anticipating-fun-can-enrich-human-life-239029 https://theconversation.com/im-a-neuroscientist-who-taught-r...
- ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
  yeah but not reliably, they often totally space on their commitments to pick you up from the airport, etc
  - rkomorn 8mo ago
    If you had to choose between picking someone up at the airport or dragging a slice of pizza twice your size down the NYC subway stairs, what would YOU do?
jeltz 8mo ago
Humans can drive with eyes only, but we are better drivers when we can also use other senses like hearing. If humans has lidar we would use it when driving.
Ajedi32 8mo ago
The bitter lesson I think is a great way of explaining the logic behind Tesla's strategy. People aren't getting it. Whether or not it'll actually work remains to be seen, but it's a perfectly reasonable strategy. One counterargument would be that the bitter lesson can be applied to LIDAR too; you don't have to use that data for feature engineering just because it seems well suited for it.

by bko 8mo ago

afavour 8mo ago

Self driving cars are not equipped with human brains so this doesn’t really make sense. “We should achieve self driving cars via replicating the human brain” strikes me as an incredibly inefficient and difficult way to solve the problem.

sebastos 8mo ago
Then you deeply underestimate how difficult the problem is, and deeply misunderstand where all the effort has been spent in developing autonomous vehicles.
- afavour 8mo ago
  If all the effort has been spent in trying to replicate the human brain then I am comfortable saying that is a mistake. We have a tool that can tell with great accuracy how far away an object is. The suggestion that we should ignore it and rely on cameras that have to guess it because “that’s how humans work” is absurd, frankly.
  - sebastos 8mo ago
    Before you can learn how far away an object is, you must decide: which laser return corresponds to which object? In fact, what counts as an object? Where does a tree stop and become a fallen tree branch? Is that object moving towards me? Is the apparent velocity of this point represent the fact that the object is moving, or that it's rotating, or that it's flexing, or dividing, or all 4? Is that object moving towards me but that's ok because it's a car that's going to stay in its lane? What's a lane? What's my laser return for where the lane is? Should I stop at this intersection? What's my laser return for whether the light is red? Am I in the blind spot of the car in front of me? Is he about to shift into my lane because he doesn't see me? What laser return do I get to tell me whether his indicator is on? The problem of understanding what is happening in front of you while driving is preposterously more complicated than just a point cloud of distances. That is .01% of the problem. To solve the remaining 99.99%, you need interpretation of photons and sound waves into a semantic understanding that gives you predictive power to guess how the physical world will evolve and avoid breaking the rules of the road. Show me a mechanized way of understanding the causes of how the physical structure of the world is about to evolve, and I'll show you something that is imitating a human brain, however poorly. The cameras give you _plenty_ of data to determine 3D structure, at a higher resolution than the laser, without being emissive, for cheaper. It's a completely reasonable approach to focus your limited computational hardware on interpreting the data you have instead of adding more modalities with their own limitations that (according to nature) are demonstrably unnecessary. The world is more complicated than slogans and pitchforks and Elon Bad.
  - stevenhuang 8mo ago
    People get into accidents not because they don't know with great accuracy how far away an object is. They get into accidents because they make bad decisions and get distracted. If AI makes better decisions and don't get distracted, the amount of accidents will already be greatly reduced compared to humans. Having lidar in addition to cameras will be of marginal benefit (but a benefit to be sure) when you realize what is actually important: proper modeling of the environment. And for this, cameras are better at providing than lidar, so you still will want cameras anyways. The focus on lidar is really a red herring. You merely push the computational budget you have to understanding a point cloud instead of vision. You're back to square 1 of "how can I properly model the environment given this sensory modality". This is the part that essentially needs human level understanding of the world that you're missing. As the other commenter says, you deeply misunderstand the problem.

thunky 8mo ago

> Why make things more complicated than they need to be? Humans don't have lidar and we are the only intelligence that can reliably drive. Because we want self driving cars to be safer than human driven cars. If humans had built in lidar we would use it when driving.

bko 8mo ago
Read the comment again. It's not that vision is "good enough", it's that feature engineering doesn't work

Analemma_ 8mo ago

This knee-jerk reply is old and tired, and the counterarguments are well-trod at this point. Even if cameras-only can build a car that’s as good as humans, why should we settle for “as good as“ humans, who cause 40,000 fatalities a year in the US? If we can do better than humans with more advanced sensors, we are practically morally obligated to do that.

xpe 8mo ago
Yes! The smart and nuanced panoply of replies to the GP are a wonderful counterbalance to people "just saying things that pop into their head" -- which is unfortunately how I view a lot of human speech nowadays :/
stevenhuang 8mo ago
I would bet a large portion of fatalities is from distracted/bad driving, not that human sight was insufficient. Phrased a different way, I would expect lidar to help marginally, but it is safer driving in general that will bring down fatalities. This could be done with cameras.

elicash 8mo ago

Don't cars already use a ton of sensors that don't reproduce human senses and ways of doing things?

a_better_world 8mo ago

> we are the only intelligence that can reliably drive. Science would like to point out that rats also can learn to drive https://theconversation.com/im-a-neuroscientist-who-taught-rats-to-drive-their-joy-suggests-how-anticipating-fun-can-enrich-human-life-239029 https://theconversation.com/im-a-neuroscientist-who-taught-r...

ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
yeah but not reliably, they often totally space on their commitments to pick you up from the airport, etc
- rkomorn 8mo ago
  If you had to choose between picking someone up at the airport or dragging a slice of pizza twice your size down the NYC subway stairs, what would YOU do?

jeltz 8mo ago

Humans can drive with eyes only, but we are better drivers when we can also use other senses like hearing. If humans has lidar we would use it when driving.

Ajedi32 8mo ago

The bitter lesson I think is a great way of explaining the logic behind Tesla's strategy. People aren't getting it. Whether or not it'll actually work remains to be seen, but it's a perfectly reasonable strategy. One counterargument would be that the bitter lesson can be applied to LIDAR too; you don't have to use that data for feature engineering just because it seems well suited for it.