| ▲ | quonn 13 hours ago |
| It‘s not just Musk. Most automobile manufacturers have maintained that they need to find a way to do it with cheap and pretty sensors. |
|
| ▲ | Klaus23 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| This is simply not true. Let's look at the best autonomous driving features available today, i.e. level 3: Mercedes Drive Pilot: Uses a lidar (and a dummy unit) up front. BMW Personal Pilot: Uses a lidar (and a dummy unit) up front Honda SENSING Elite: Uses 5! lidars They all use lidar, and some of the placement locations are downright hideous (Mercedes EQS). I think further development will require even more/better sensors, and manufacturers tend to agree on this point. |
| |
| ▲ | ra7 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Chinese OEMs (BYD, Xaomi, Nio) use lidar in almost all of their mid to premium segments. Also, Polestar 3. | | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | How well do they work? Camera only systems can be easily blinded by sun, fog, dirt, and snow |
| |
| ▲ | asdasdsddd 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What are the benchmarks that say Mercedes, BMW, and Honda have the best level 3 features. | | |
| ▲ | Klaus23 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I ignore the Chinese because it is difficult to get reliable English information. Apart from those, these are the only level 3 systems available, and level 3 is the most advanced system that private individuals can currently get their hands on. Have I missed any? | |
| ▲ | fragmede 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Don't forget Blue Cruise from Ford. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | juliushuijnk 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > have maintained that they need to find a way to do it with cheap If the goal is to make roads safer. Aiming for cheap is good, it means aiming for more people who can afford that safer car. If it's not safer than humans, it should not be on the road in the first place. |
|
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | tgaj 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Theoretically if a human can drive a car using a pair of eyes connected to brain, it should be possible to do that using two cameras connected to some kind of image processing unit. |
| |
| ▲ | itishappy 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In theory. In practice neither the cameras nor processors available in cars function anywhere near human level. | |
| ▲ | carbotaniuman 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Theory isn't really all that applicable to this though - in theory nothing is stopping anyone from writing all code in assembly, but obviously that doesn't happen. I think more practically cars have adding driver assistance feature for a while now - more cameras, blind spot monitoring, ultrasound for parking, lane drift indicators. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that adding more sensors is helpful (but even the old adage of more data is better than less would probably say that). | | |
| ▲ | tgaj 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | To be honest, it's possible that having too much data can only cause problems in quick decision-making. Any redundant data will only slow down processing pipelines. |
| |
| ▲ | knifie_spoonie 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In practice humans aren't particularly safe drivers. | | |
| ▲ | xdmr 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is that because their vision fails to provide the information necessary to drive safely? Or is it due to distraction and/or poor judgment? I don't actually know the answer to this, but I assume distraction/judgment is a bigger factor. I'm not a fan of the camera-only approach and think Tesla is making a mistake backing it due to path-dependence, but when we're _only_ talking about this is _broadly theoretical_ terms, I don't think they're wrong. The ideal autonomous driving agent is like a perfect monday morning quarterback who gets to look at every failure and say "see, what you should have done here was..." and it seems like it might well both have enough information and be able too see enough cases to meet some desirable standard of safety. In theory. In practice, maybe they just can't get enough accuracy or something. | | |
| ▲ | ra7 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Is that because their vision fails to provide the information necessary to drive safely? In certain conditions, yes. Humans drive terribly in dark and low light, something lidar excels in. | | |
| ▲ | tgaj 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Still, millions of humans drive every night and only a miniscule percentage cause any accidents. So maybe we are not so bad at this. |
| |
| ▲ | tgaj 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I totally agree, I think most accidents are caused by human nature (especially slow reaction time in specific conditions like being tired or drunk) and ignoring laws of physics (driving too fast). And some are just a pure bad luck (something/someone getting on the road right in front of the car). |
|
| |
| ▲ | fragmede 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If we want the sell driving computer to be only possibly as good as a human. I can't see in the dark, can't see through fog, and have trouble with rain. Why is human visibility the bar to meet here? | | |
| ▲ | fragmede 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh and the sun. I get blinded when the sun is in my eyes at sunrise and sunset. | | |
| ▲ | tgaj 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | And how many car accidents did you cause in your life? Probably still no a lot even with your flawed vision. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jdhwosnhw 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Imagine that same reasoning applied to the car itself. Ugh, wheels?? Humans get around just fine bipedally, so cars should have legs too. | | |
|
