3 ms·
Humans, also posses a listening system, balance system, a highly advance pattern recognition system filled with auto complete from a huge database of pictures (
by Ygg2 12y ago
Humans, also posses a listening system, balance system, a highly advance pattern recognition system filled with auto complete from a huge database of pictures (which to this date hasn't been replicated - face recognition doesn't count it needs to recognize cars, signs, people, animals, pavement, trees, obstacles, etc.), not to mention knowledge of various possible scenarios, various models of how their body/car/traffic works, etc.
You get to use worse hardware, but you need several order magnitude better software.
- x1798DE 12y agoI would guess that the processing power is all that matters. It's not difficult or particularly dangerous to drive without being able to hear. I would guess that people driving remote controlled cars with 360-degree views but no other cues would perform very nearly as well as real drivers.
- markbao 12y agoI think the key point is that it is very difficult for software to parse view-from-windshield images like this: http://blogs.bootsnall.com/chaskaconrow/files/2006/02/Chaska%20064.jpg http://blogs.bootsnall.com/chaskaconrow/files/2006/02/Chaska... The human eye can instantly recognize the available driving paths, the motorcyclist ahead, and project where people will walk. Software would have to parse out where the open roads are, how far that motorcyclist is and whether he can clear the intersection before the car reaches it, and what that sign on the right-hand side is—using the same information, but it has to parse it first whereas we do that almost instantly. It's a totally different game.
- x1798DE 12y agoYes, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying the other sensors the parent post mentioned weren't actually important with regards to driving, just our ability to parse the visual data into a meaningful model of the world around us.
- Ygg2 12y agoI think hearing is also useful, from time to time. It's not AS critical as sight, but if nothing it allows drivers to share their emotional state in a very primitive way and to gauge how their engine is performing.
- derefr 12y ago> a highly advance pattern recognition system filled with auto complete from a huge database of pictures (which to this date hasn't been replicated - face recognition doesn't count it needs to recognize cars, signs, people, animals, pavement, trees, obstacles, etc.) I expect that, after the first wave of clumsy LIDARing self-driving cars, all the car companies (Google especially) will be collecting exactly training data from the cars' sensors to build exactly this kind of model. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that was what the Google car was really about, in the same way Google Voice is really about collecting speech training data. The best part of this kind of training data is that it all comes pre-annotated with appropriate reinforcements: even if the image-recognition sensors aren't hooked up to anything, they're coupled to the input stream from the other car sensors and the driver's actions. So you would get training data like - "saw [image of stopsign], other heuristically-programmed system decided car should stop, driver confirmed stop." - "saw [image of kitten standing in the road], other heuristically-programmed system decided car should continue, driver overrode and stopped car." Etc. Aggregating all these reports from many self-driving cars, you could build an excellent image-to-appropriate-reaction classifier.
- blktiger 12y agoYes, but with voice data it's ok if the system gets it wrong occasionally. Worst-case scenario is the user gets annoyed and tries again (or gives up and does something else). In a driving situation, the worst-case scenario is everybody dies.
- mrexroad 12y agoSame worst-case scenario when humans drive daily, but wrong less often.
- emergentcypher 12y agoNot to mention a hard-wired muscle-memory response system for crisis situations.