4 ms·
> So that should technically be sufficient Sufficient to build something close to human performance. But self driving cars will be held to a much higher standa
by nindalf 7mo ago
> So that should technically be sufficient
Sufficient to build something close to human performance. But self driving cars will be held to a much higher standard by society. A standard only achievable by having sensors like LiDAR.
- thfuran 7mo agoEven if they weren’t going to be held to a higher standard for widespread acceptance, tens of thousands of people a year in the us die due to humans driving badly. Why would we not try to do better than that?
- sylos 7mo agoBecause that's an acceptable loss and better costs more!
- anthonypasq 7mo agoif a self driving car had the exact vision of humans it would still be better because it has better reaction times. never mind the fact that humans cant actually process all the visual information in our field of view because we dont have the broad attention to be able to do that. its very obvious that you can get super human performance with just cameras. Whether thats worth completely throwing away LiDAR is a different question, but your argument is just obviously false.
- aworks 7mo agoThis reminds me of the time I was distantly following a Waymo car at speed on 101 in Mountain View during rush hour. The Waymo brake lights came on first followed a second or two later by the rest of the traffic.
- hn_acc1 7mo agoBetter reaction times only matter if the decisions are the same / better in every case. Clearly we are not there on that aspect of it yet. Deciding to crash faster, or "tell human to take over" really fast is NOT better.