3 ms·
I thought the pitch for just-cameras was that the hardware was cheaper and that it's what humans are "using", evidence that it should be sufficient. Just-camera
by cosmotic 2mo ago
I thought the pitch for just-cameras was that the hardware was cheaper and that it's what humans are "using", evidence that it should be sufficient. Just-cameras was to take more engineering to build upnfront but pay off in lower costs in the end. That argument disagrees with the graph that's presented.
- parl_match 2mo agoThe argument made more sense 5+ years ago, but the hardware costs of sensors such as LIDAR has plummeted. In addition, a certain CEO of a certain car company has made very aggressive sales pitches about how LIDAR isn't necessary and even going so far as to sell unfinished self driving solutions as being completely capable of doing so. So hypothetically, if that car company were to adopt LIDAR, they would have been selling their solution under false claims in a sales capacity.
- qingcharles 2mo agoSure, cameras (eyes) are mostly all that humans are using, but two points: 1) the vehicles aren't quite matched with the same experience and intelligence (right now) as exists behind a human's two "cameras" 2) we hold self-driving robots to a much higher standard. meatbags are getting smushed in large numbers daily by other humans, but a single robot smushing a human is headline news for days. giving the robot vastly more information about the world around it, in much higher detail will eventually allow it to drive much better than us. [obviously we should hold them to higher standards, we should create something much better at driving than the best humans]