| ▲ | tgaj 11 hours ago |
| 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 11 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 11 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 9 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 7 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. |
| |
