Never underestimate the power of freakin' lasers! Have fun learning to think like an engineer and get 2 FREE boxes at: http://crunchlabs.com/LidarGet your Cr...
Lets assume that a human driver would fall for it, for sale of argument.
Would that make it a good idea to potentially run over a kid just because a human would have to, when we have a decent option to do better than human senses?
What makes you assume that a vision based system performs worse than the average human? Or that it can’t be 20 times safer?
I think the main reason to go vision-only is the software complexity of merging mixed sensor data. Radar or Lidar alone also have their limitations.
I wish it was a different company or that Musk would sell Tesla. But I think they are the closest to reaching full autonomy. Let’s see how it goes when FSD launches this year.
Somehow other car companies are managing to merge data from multiple sources fine. Tesla even used to do it, but stopped to shave a few dollars in their costs.
In terms of assuming there would be safety concerns, well this video clearly demonstrates that adding lidar avoids three scenarios, at least two of them realistic. As I said my standard is not “human driver” but safest options as demonstrated.
One, I don’t know if ‘autonomous no matter what’ is an important enough goal versus ADAS, but for another, the gold standard in the industry except Tesla is vehicle mounted LIDAR, with investments to bring down the tech price.
Merging data from different sources was never claimed by anyone to be too hard a problem, again, even Tesla used to and decided to downgrade their capabilities for cost. “It’s just not worth it” is a strange take on a video demonstrating quite clearly the better data from LIDAR than you can possibly get from cameras and the benefit of avoiding collisions, collisions that kill thousands a year. Even the relatively “won’t turn on unless things are perfect” autopilot has killed quite a few people, and incurred hundreds of accidents beyond that.
Part of the problem is the question of who is at fault if an autonomous car crashes. If a human falls for this and crashes, it’s their fault. They are responsible for their damages and the damages caused by their negligence. We expect a human driver to be able to handle any road hazards. If a self driving car crashes who’s fault is it? Tesla? They say their self driving is a beta test so drivers must remain attentive at all times. The human passenger? Most people would expect a self driving car would drive itself. If it crashes, I would expect the people that made the faulty software to be at fault, but they are doing everything they can to shift the blame off of themselves. If a self driving car crashes, they expect the owner to eat the cost.
As soon as we have hard data from real world use and FSD is safer than the average human, it would be unethical to not solve the regulatory and legal issues and apply it on a larger scale to save human lives.
If a human driver causes a crash, the insurance pays. Why shouldn’t they if a computer caused the crash, which drives safer overall, if only by let’s say 10%.
The road runner thing isn’t far fetched. Teslas have a track record of t-boning semi trucks in overcast conditions, where the sky matches the color of the truck’s container.
That is a completely legitimate question. That you are downvoted says a lot about the current state of Lemmy. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the Musk hate, but it looks like a nuanced discussion on topics where Nazi-Elon is involved is currently not possibe.
I am not a fan of Tesla/Elon but are you sure that no human driver would fall for this?
Lets assume that a human driver would fall for it, for sale of argument.
Would that make it a good idea to potentially run over a kid just because a human would have to, when we have a decent option to do better than human senses?
What makes you assume that a vision based system performs worse than the average human? Or that it can’t be 20 times safer?
I think the main reason to go vision-only is the software complexity of merging mixed sensor data. Radar or Lidar alone also have their limitations.
I wish it was a different company or that Musk would sell Tesla. But I think they are the closest to reaching full autonomy. Let’s see how it goes when FSD launches this year.
Somehow other car companies are managing to merge data from multiple sources fine. Tesla even used to do it, but stopped to shave a few dollars in their costs.
In terms of assuming there would be safety concerns, well this video clearly demonstrates that adding lidar avoids three scenarios, at least two of them realistic. As I said my standard is not “human driver” but safest options as demonstrated.
Which other system can drive autonomous in potentially any environment without relying on map data?
If merging data from different sensors increases complexity by factor 5, it’s just not worth it.
One, I don’t know if ‘autonomous no matter what’ is an important enough goal versus ADAS, but for another, the gold standard in the industry except Tesla is vehicle mounted LIDAR, with investments to bring down the tech price.
Merging data from different sources was never claimed by anyone to be too hard a problem, again, even Tesla used to and decided to downgrade their capabilities for cost. “It’s just not worth it” is a strange take on a video demonstrating quite clearly the better data from LIDAR than you can possibly get from cameras and the benefit of avoiding collisions, collisions that kill thousands a year. Even the relatively “won’t turn on unless things are perfect” autopilot has killed quite a few people, and incurred hundreds of accidents beyond that.
Autopilot is not FSD and I bet many of the deaths were caused by inattentive drivers.
Which other system has a similar architecture and similar potential?
All the other cars he tested stopped just fine.
Part of the problem is the question of who is at fault if an autonomous car crashes. If a human falls for this and crashes, it’s their fault. They are responsible for their damages and the damages caused by their negligence. We expect a human driver to be able to handle any road hazards. If a self driving car crashes who’s fault is it? Tesla? They say their self driving is a beta test so drivers must remain attentive at all times. The human passenger? Most people would expect a self driving car would drive itself. If it crashes, I would expect the people that made the faulty software to be at fault, but they are doing everything they can to shift the blame off of themselves. If a self driving car crashes, they expect the owner to eat the cost.
As soon as we have hard data from real world use and FSD is safer than the average human, it would be unethical to not solve the regulatory and legal issues and apply it on a larger scale to save human lives.
If a human driver causes a crash, the insurance pays. Why shouldn’t they if a computer caused the crash, which drives safer overall, if only by let’s say 10%.
The road runner thing seems a bit far fetched yeah. But there were also tests with heavy rain and fog which were not passed by Tesla.
Should be fine if the car reduces speed to account for the conditions. Just like a human driver does.
And the Tesla doesn’t, that’s the problem. A human would slow down if they can’t see, the Tesla just barrels through blindly.
FSD is still in development
The road runner thing isn’t far fetched. Teslas have a track record of t-boning semi trucks in overcast conditions, where the sky matches the color of the truck’s container.
That is a completely legitimate question. That you are downvoted says a lot about the current state of Lemmy. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the Musk hate, but it looks like a nuanced discussion on topics where Nazi-Elon is involved is currently not possibe.