| |
| ▲ | figassis 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Behavioral and pattern analysis is always in full overdrive when I drive. I drive in Africa, people never follow rules, red lights at crossings mean go for bikers, when there are no lights you can't just give right of way, or you'll never move. When nearing intersections, people accelerate so they can cross before you, and it's a long line, and they know you have right of way, so they accelerate to scare you into stopping. Amateurs freeze and hold up the line for a very long time, usually until a traffic officer shows up to unblock (multiply this by every intersection). In order for you to get anywhere, you have to play the same game, and get close enough to the point where they aren't sure you'll stop, and will hit you and will have to pay. So often at crossings you're always in near misses and they realize you're not going to stop, so they do. Everyone is skilled enough to do this daily. Your senses, your risk analysis, your spider sense are fully overclocked most of the time. And then there are all the other crazy things that happen, like all the insane lane zig zagging people do, bikers our of nowhere et night with no lights, memorizing all the pot holes in all roads in the city bc they aren't illuminated at night so you can drive at 80-120km/h, etc.
So no, it's not just your eyes. Lots of sensors, memory, processing, memory/mapping are required. | |
| ▲ | bhaney 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Personally, I can smell a left turn signal from nearly three blocks away | | |
| ▲ | okr 5 days ago | parent [-] | | The spider crawling out of the back of the car mirror has seen things, that are far beyond i will ever experience visually! |
| |
| ▲ | Rohansi 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And which ones can't be replicated with hardware? | | |
| ▲ | scrollaway 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Even without getting out of the vision sense there are features of vision Tesla doesn’t properly try to replicate. Depth perception for example (it does DP very differently to humans). You also do use your ears when driving. | | |
| ▲ | rogerrogerr 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Binocular depth perception stops being useful somewhere around 10 meters. Your brain is mostly driving using the “computed” depth perception based on the flat image it’s getting. Same way Tesla is getting a depth map. Provable by one-eyed people being able to drive just fine, as could you with one eye covered. | |
| ▲ | vbezhenar 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | One-eyed people are allowed to drive. | | |
| ▲ | scrollaway 5 days ago | parent [-] | | What’s your point? I was answering a question, not making a statement about any disabilities. | | |
| ▲ | vbezhenar 5 days ago | parent [-] | | My point is that "hardware" depth perception is not necessary for successful driving. Just one camera should be enough, rest is algorithms. | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Eyes are not cameras they are extensions of the brain. That people can drive with one eye is not a "proof of concept" that cars should be able to drive with one camera. You'll need a human brain to go along with it. Unfortunately for Tesla, they seem to be short on supply of those at the moment. | | |
| ▲ | rogerrogerr 5 days ago | parent [-] | | So your assertion is that a human with access to arbitrarily good camera feeds could not drive a car at level 5? That something magical is happening because the eyes are close topographically to the brain? Sounds implausible. | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | How does the human consume the arbitrarily good camera feeds? > That something magical is happening because the eyes are close topographically to the brain? It sounds to me like you have to study what eyes actually are. It's not about proximity or magic, they are a part of your brain, and we're only beginning to understand their complexities. Eyes are not just sensory organs, so the analogy to cameras is way off. They are able to discern edges, motion, color, and shapes, as well as correct errors before your brain even is even aware. In robotics, we only get this kind of information after the camera image has been sent through a perception pipeline, often incurring a round trip through some sort of AI and a GPU at this point. > Sounds implausible. Musk just spent billions of dollars and the better part of a decade trying to prove the conjecture that "cameras are sufficient", and now he's waving the white flag. So however implausible it sounds, it's now more implausible than ever that cameras alone are sufficient. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > your assertion is that a human with access to arbitrarily good camera feeds could not drive a car at level 5? No. I live in snow country. Folks with vestibular issues are advised to pull over in snowstorms because sometimes the only indication that you have perpendicular velocity and are approaching a slide off the road or spin is that sense. My Subaru has on more than one occasion noticed a car before I did based on radar. Vision only was a neat bet. But it will cost Tesla first to market status generally and especially in cities, where regulators should have fair scepticism about a company openly trying to do self driving on the cheap. | | |
| ▲ | rogerrogerr 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Teslas definitely have accelerometers/gyros, and have access to the torque and RPM on every wheel. It has a much better picture of the 3D motion of the car relative to the road than any human driver. | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Dynamics don't help when you are blinded by the sun or can't discern the broadside of a firetruck. | | |
| ▲ | rogerrogerr 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Cameras can clearly discern the broadside of a firetruck. Whether some earlier build didn't detect one doesn't change that firetrucks reflect plenty of photons to be detectable. I'm consistently surprised by how immune to sun-blindness my car is. It regularly reads traffic lights that have the sun right next to them; I've never seen any discernible degradation due to too much light, too little light, or bad contrast of any kind. You're just bringing up a never-ending stream of but-what-abouts, so I'm done refuting them after this. It's not a good use of my time. | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Your personal experience with your car doesn't change that Tesla is waving the white flag due to the fact the sensor system Musk insisted on has caused deaths and is too unreliable to deliver full autonomy. The sun has confounded Tesla autonomy since its inception, and its shortcomings caused multiple decapitations: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tesla-florida-acciden... > You're just bringing up a never-ending stream of but-what-abouts By "what abouts" you of course mean "shortcomings of camera-only systems that make them unsuitable for full autonomy." > It's not a good use of my time. No it's not, it's a losing battle, and Musk has admitted it. Camera-only systems will not enable full self driving. Y'all got scammed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mlindner 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Teslas have and use microphones. | | |
| ▲ | scrollaway 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Gp asked about specifically vision only approach. Vision only means no microphones, regardless of whether Tesla has any… What is up with hn today? Was there a mass stroke? | | |
| ▲ | rogerrogerr 5 days ago | parent [-] | | “Vision-only” colloquially means no LIDAR and other expensive sensors, not the exclusion of microphones (which are hilariously cheap). |
|
| |
| ▲ | dtj1123 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | One eyed, deaf people can drive | |
| ▲ | gizajob 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Deaf people can drive fine. |
| |
| ▲ | ndesaulniers 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | ...taste? | |
| ▲ | moogly 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ask Musk; he's the one who claims that sensor fusion does not work. | |
| ▲ | tester756 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | intuition? |
| |
| ▲ | terminalshort 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah, but you can drive on vision alone. Deaf people are allowed to drive just the same as anyone else. | | |
| ▲ | asadotzler 5 days ago | parent [-] | | It's not just hearing. I can "feel" in the seat of my pants, the pull of the steering wheel, et. I have a vestibular system that knows bout relative velocities and changes which coordinates with my other senses, and more. This all allows me to take in far more than what my eyes see, or my ears hear and to build the correct intuitions and muscle memories to get good at driving and adapt to new driving environments. |
| |
| ▲ | ndsipa_pomu 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > You use more senses than just vision when driving a car Deaf drivers (may include drivers playing loud music too) don't, unless they're somehow tasting the other vehicles. | | |
| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | We have these things called "inner ears." I'm pretty sure deaf people have them, too. Nature's accelerometers. I've had mine go bad, and it wasn't fun. Just sayin'... | | |
| ▲ | ndsipa_pomu 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Were you unable to drive when your inner ears weren't functioning? | | |
| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I guess so. I was unable to stand up. | | |
| ▲ | ndsipa_pomu 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Sounds horrible. I can understand that stopping you from cycling, but if you could have managed to sit in a car, would you have been able to drive it? I can imagine that inner ear issues can sometimes affect vision too as my wife suffered from positional vertigo for a while and I could see her eyes flicking rapidly when she was getting dizzy. (I did find a helpful YouTube video about a sequence of positions to put the sufferer through which basically helps to remove the otoliths from the ear canal). | | |
| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In my case, it was a brain tumor. Took a bit more than Lotus Position. It all came out OK, in the end, but it was touch-and-go for a while. | | | |
| ▲ | robocat 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | When the vertigo is bad, you can't even go as a passenger in the car because the movement is literally sickening. Even driving with mild vertigo could be difficult because you want to restrict your head movement. Source: my dad gets Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) | | |
| ▲ | ndsipa_pomu 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I'd recommend him trying the Epley Maneouvre as it's quick and easy to do (needs someone to help though) and is unlikely to make anything worse. | | |
| ▲ | robocat 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Thanks. I've tried to encourage him to learn it. He's stubborn and isn't interested. He's had physio do it when he was hospitalized... He's mentally sharp, and has a science background, but nope! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | asadotzler 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | vestibular system |
| |
| ▲ | vel0city 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There are more than three senses. | | |
| ▲ | ndsipa_pomu 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes and they're not really of much use in driving safely unless you're referring to some spidey-sense of danger. | | |
| ▲ | vel0city 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm using inertial senses from my inner ear. I feel the suspension through the seat. I feel feedback through the steering wheel. I can feel the g forces pulling on my body. | | |
| ▲ | ndsipa_pomu 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but in what specific circumstances do they change your driving behaviour? If you weren't able to feel the suspension through your seat, how would your driving become less safe? | | |
| ▲ | vel0city 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | One quick obvious example, they put tactile features on the road specifically so you can feel them. Little bumps on lane markers. Rumble strips on the boundaries. Obvious features like that. While it doesn't often snow or ice up here (it does sometimes), it does rain a good bit from time to time. You can usually feel your car start to hydroplane and lose traction well before anything else goes wrong. It's an important thing to feel but you wouldn't know it's happening if you're going purely on vision. You can often feel when there's something wrong with your car. Vibrations due to alignment or balance issues. Things like that. Those are quick examples off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more. Of course, all these things can be tracked with extra sensors, I'm not arguing humans are entirely unique in being able to sense these things. But they are important bits of feedback to operate your car safely in a wide range of conditions that you probably will encounter, and should be accounted for in the model. As for auditory feedback, while some drivers don't have sound input available to them (whether they're deaf or their music is too loud or whatever) sound is absolutely a useful input to have. You may hear emergency vehicles you cannot see. You may hear honking alerting you to something weird going on in a particular direction. You may hear issues with your car. Those rumble strips are also tuned to be loud when cars run over them as well. You can hear the big wind gusts and understand those are the source of weird forces pushing the car around as opposed to other things making your car behave strangely. So sure, one can drive a car without sound, but its not better without it. | |
| ▲ | MangoToupe 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Pretty much all of them. The difference between driving a car and playing a video game is remarkable. But that's sort of besides the point: why would you not use additional data when the price of the sensors are baked into the feature that you're selling? |
|
| |
| ▲ | tombert 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I am not 100% sure which “sense” this would be, but when I drive I can “feel” the texture of the road and intuit roughly how much traction I have. I’m not special, every driver does this, consciously or not. I am not saying that you couldn’t do this with hardware, I am quite confident you could actually, but I am just saying that there are senses other than sight and sound at play here. | | |
| ▲ | ndsipa_pomu 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Whilst that might feel re-assuring that you're getting tactile feedback, I doubt that there's many situations apart from driving on snow and ice that it's of much use. Fair enough if you're aiming for a lap record round a track, but otherwise you shouldn't be anywhere near the limit of traction of your tyres. | | |
| ▲ | tombert 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Snow, ice, and rain are cases that still need to be accounted for so that really doesn’t dispel anything I said. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | renewiltord 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | But we allow deaf people to drive but not people who are entirely blind. This means vision is necessary and sufficient. The problem is clearly a question of the fidelity of the vision and our ability to slave a decision maker and mapper to it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | terminalshort 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Cameras are better than human eyes. Much better. There are areas in which they are worse, but that's completely outweighed by the fact that you are not limited to two of them and they can have a 360 degree field of vision. | | |
| ▲ | FireBeyond 5 days ago | parent [-] | | What garbage. The human eye has about 20 stops of dynamic range. Cameras of the size that are in a Tesla are at about 12 stops. That's a lot of data they don't get. For just one thing. Human eyes can also adjust focal distance multiple times a second, which camera (lenses) have a harder time doing. | | |
| ▲ | terminalshort 4 days ago | parent [-] | | For one tiny portion of the 360 field of vision of cameras, yes. For the rest they have 0 stops. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Rohansi 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The best cameras are surely better than most peoples' eyes these days. Sensory processing is not matched, sure, but IMO how a human drives is more involved than it needs to be. We only have two eyes and they both look in the same direction. We need to continuously look around to track what's around us. It demands a lot of attention from us that we may not always have to spare, especially if we're distracted. | | |
| ▲ | rcxdude 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >The best cameras are surely better than most peoples' eyes these days. Not on all metrics, especially not simultaneously. The dynamic range of human eyes, for example, is extremely high. | | |
| ▲ | Rohansi 5 days ago | parent [-] | | The front camera Tesla is using is very good with this. You can drive with the sun shining directly into it and it will still detect everything 99% of the time, at least with my older model 3. Way better than me stuck looking at the pavement directly in front the car. AFAIK there is also more than one front camera. Why would anyone try to do it all with one or two camera sensors like humans do it? It's important to remember that the cameras Tesla are using are optimized for everything but picture quality. They are not just taking flagship phone camera sensors and sticking them into cars. That's why their dashcam recordings look so bad (to us) if you've ever seen them. |
| |
| ▲ | kivle 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well, Teslas use low cost consumer cameras. Not DSLRs. Bad framerate, bad resolution and bad dynamic range. Very far from human vision and easily blinded and completely washed out by sudden shifts in light. | | |
| ▲ | matthewdgreen 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You can compare the size of the cameras used in Tesla with the size (of the lenses at least) on the Waymo rig, and they do not look like they’re in the same league, optically. | |
| ▲ | rogerrogerr 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’m consistently surprised by how my Tesla can see a traffic light with the sun directly behind it. They seem to have solved the washout problem in practice. |
|
|
|
