Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'

autoblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 20 posts

Re: GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'

#11

Post by smileysteve »

dingo_bat wrote: post #4
dpark wrote: post #3

> to say you can be a full Level 5 with just cameras and radars, is not physically possible. Of course it’s possible. Humans manage to drive just fine without even radar. Optical recognition is clearly sufficient. With that said, we clearly have not solved self-driving cars and it’s very possible that better sensors will improve the tech faster than smarter computing.

WOuldn't that logic suggest that self-driving tech dependent only on image recognition has a hard-limit at around the human driving expertise-level? If we truly want super-human driving skills (as everyone seems to expect from future cars), wouldn't that mandate a richer and better quality of data?

> image recognition has a hard-limit

If you limit image recognition to fixed binaural vision at a PD ~70; sure.

But cars can have more cameras, better infrared sensing, multiple exposure sensing, better field of view, quicker/better rotating ability and be couple more tightly with car speed to make more accurate predictions, adjustable known zoom.

So, if the human driving level were Deadshot + Jason Bourne + the Exorcist + Riddick + American Sniper + the Mentalist + Ghandi.

Re: GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'

#14

Post by dstroot »

tfolbrecht wrote: post #12

Level 5 possible without lidar: Tesla has a potentially less expensive driverless system Level 5 impossible without lidar: Tesla licenses the tech and buys the hardware like everyone else Looks like two upsides on this bet.

Umm... not without losing bet number one and the associated brand and image impact of selling thousands of cars that were sold as self-driving capable.

Re: GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'

#15

Post by theyregreat »

_m8fo wrote: post #13

How can someone say that Level 5 driving without lidar is impossible? How exactly are humans driving then? Ridiculous. I'm still skeptical that it can be implemented successfully, though, given that we still don't have Level 5 with lidar.

Yup. GM jealousy FUD.

Re: GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'

#16

Post by jsjohnst »

dpark wrote: post #8
dingo_bat wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WOuldn't that logic suggest that self-driving tech dependent only on image recognition has a hard-limit at around the human driving expertise-level? If we truly want super-human driving skills (as everyone seems to expect from future cars), wouldn't that mandate a richer and better quality of data?

Not really. Dogs have roughly the same visual capacity as humans but are really shitty drivers nonetheless. Visual acuity doesn't necessarily correlate tightly with driving ability. It's possible that human-level driving is as good as it can get with just optical vision, but there's no evidence to support that. There may be vast untapped potential from pure optical vision. Honestly, if we just got self-driving cars a…

> Dogs have roughly the same visual capacity as humans

While I more or less agree with the rest of your post, source needed on the quoted part. From everything I’ve read on the topic, there is significant differences in dog perception over humans (FoV, depth perception, motion detection, flicker fusion, etc).

Re: GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'

#17

Post by dpark »

jsjohnst wrote: post #16
dpark wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Dogs have roughly the same visual capacity as humans but are really shitty drivers nonetheless. Visual acuity doesn't necessarily correlate tightly with driving ability. It's possible that human-level driving is as good as it can get with just optical vision, but there's no evidence to support that. There may be vast untapped potential from pure optical vision. Honestly, if we just got self-driving cars a…

> Dogs have roughly the same visual capacity as humans While I more or less agree with the rest of your post, source needed on the quoted part. From everything I’ve read on the topic, there is significant differences in dog perception over humans (FoV, depth perception, motion detection, flicker fusion, etc).

Hence roughly. (Call it order of magnitude.) The primary limitation on dogs' driving ability is not their vision.

Re: GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'

#18

Post by tfolbrecht »

dstroot wrote: post #14
tfolbrecht wrote: post #12

Level 5 possible without lidar: Tesla has a potentially less expensive driverless system Level 5 impossible without lidar: Tesla licenses the tech and buys the hardware like everyone else Looks like two upsides on this bet.

Umm... not without losing bet number one and the associated brand and image impact of selling thousands of cars that were sold as self-driving capable.

Tesla has back peddled on so many deadlines and claims without killing themselves yet, so we'll see.

Re: GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'

#19

Post by jsjohnst »

dpark wrote: post #17
jsjohnst wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dogs have roughly the same visual capacity as humans While I more or less agree with the rest of your post, source needed on the quoted part. From everything I’ve read on the topic, there is significant differences in dog perception over humans (FoV, depth perception, motion detection, flicker fusion, etc).

Hence roughly . (Call it order of magnitude.) The primary limitation on dogs' driving ability is not their vision.

> The primary limitation on dogs' driving ability is not their vision.

Actually, I’d argue that it is, but maybe my definition of “vision” is overly pedantic.

Vision is to seeing as listening is to hearing for me.

Post reply on HN