431–440 of 483 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cars drive in cities, last I checked.
I guess you're saying that "cities are mapped, dude." But not mapped in anything like the way Waymo maps for this purpose: if I heard right, yesterday, mapped to the centimeter and very frequently updated to deal with any changes of any kind!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is yikes - what's shocking is that you seem to be advocating for that same exact perspective for... driving a car???
Nope. There's definitely mapping, and then, much, much more. You're stuffing words in my mouth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is definitely a clever marketing pitch, as there is plenty of evidence to back up that LIDAR makes self-driving cars significantly safer. However, despite the hype, Teslas aren't really self driving cars at the moment, so it seems an acceptable commercial decision wrapped up in a clever sales pitch.
That's also true for high resolution maps. The question is whether you're solving for self-driving on highways or a handful of mapped city centers or whether you want to solve for the real thing. Tesla is all-in on FULL self driving, and most other companies are betting on driver assistance or gps-locked self-driving. If Tesla can get FSD to work in the next couple of years then they're vindicated. If FSD requires a…
Our brains do an amazing job interpreting high resolution visual data and analyzing it both spatially and temporally. Our brains then take that first analysis and apply a secondary, experiential, analysis to further interpret it into various categories relevant to the current activity.
What I’ve seen from Tesla so far indicates to me that FSD shouldn’t be enabled regardless of what sensor package they’re using, let alone based on camera data only. They need to solve their ability to accurately observes their surroundings first, especially temporally. Things shouldn’t be flashing in and out that have been clearly visible to the human eye the entire time. Additionally, this all ignores the experiential portion of driving. When most people approach something like a blind driveway or crosswalk obscured by a vehicle (a dynamic, unmapped, situation), they pay special attention and sometimes change their driving behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Devils advocate, if the cost of working to improve cameras to the point where they eliminate that delta is lower than the cost of using the sensors instead, then it is a net benefit
> f the cost of working to improve cameras to the point where they eliminate that delta is lower than the cost of using the sensors instead In a vacuum, how can cameras ever be better than cameras + other sensors?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 576MP Actually our eyes are more like 8MP: https://www.picturecorrect.com/what-is-the-resolution-of-the... Perhaps higher synthetic resolution from moving our eyes about, or perhaps that is meaningless.
It could be reframed as saying we have a peak acuity equivalent to a 576MP camera of the same FOV with a theoretical max of 20 samples per second (50 ms to move targets, realistically probably more like single digits). The 8MP comparison is only relevant if there are so many targets that need constant full resolution that you can't focus on all of them or the targets are so large that they are larger than the peak ac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Munro’s cost breakdown is much more informative in just how much it’ll save in terms of parts/labor. https://youtu.be/LS3Vk0NPFDE In general the ‘harm to consumers’ is really just making it more likely they damage the car in a parking lot or their garage, which tells you where their priorities are (sales, Automotive gross profit). Assuming occupancy network works, the only real blind spot left is if something in fron…
This thread is unhelpfully mixing radar and ultrasonic sensors. Ultrasonic sensors, as your video explains, are primarily used as a parking aid; they are tuned for too low a distance to be helpful in just about any kind of driving scenario at speed. Meanwhile, radar is the principal sensor used in systems like automatic emergency braking across the industry. It has no intersection with any of the parking stuff becaus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lex's comment did not strike me as a dig. i am actually concerned by your comment because it makes me wonder if i am missing other things too? it just doesnt seem like a dig. it seems like he thought of something funny and wanted to share it. am i alone in this? and also i dont understand your assertion that it was some kind of cynical maneuver to re-frame the question. he could have also said "yes, more sensors are…
> also is there some intrinsic limitation of the dynamic range of cameras? people are talking about problems with dynamic range being intrinsic to cameras but im pretty sure that cameras and especially camera suites that do not have more problems with dynamic range than a human eye are possible to make and probably already on the market. I think it's possible that professional movie cameras (with the appropriate lens…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i just dont get it. lex says "lets re-frame the question: can a language model drive a car?" this doesnt have any insinuations about andrej's intentions or motives. if it were calling out bullshit it would be "lets re-frame the question: why is elon musk never wrong?" lex kisses elon musks ass, last time i checked hes on musks side in the lidar debate and also lex has a record of listening patiently no matter what an…
See my sibling comment, but I agree with you, especially about Lex's track record, and I think the other commenters are projecting. And you're right, reframing a question is like THE MOVE for academics, so it's completely not evidence that Andrej was making "a bullshit move" (although it's also a classic move for PR flaks, so it's possible he was making a bullshit move).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, yes, cars that are programmed to have AEB: perform well at AEB and not other tasks. We are in agreement here. (I even agree with you that those cars use Radar for AEB). Now, where we disagree is you implying that cars with AEB-level radar (literally $10 off-the-shelf parts with whatever sensor fusion some MobilEye intern dreams ups) are somehow the same as self-driving cars (the goal of Tesla Autopilot). Every se…
> ”There is no one sensor that will do it. Full stop.” Yet somehow, humans can drive cars with just a pair of optical sensors (mounted on a swivelling gimbal, of sorts). In theory, a sufficiently capable AI should be able to drive a car at least as well as a human can using the same input: vision.