GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'
1–10 of 20 posts
Re: GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'
#2With the current state of computer vision and AI, I would agree with GM. There's a lot of fast and loose talk about what AI can and can't do, but the reality is we're not even close to having general intelligence which would, at least in a rudimentary form, be necessary to safely navigate a car using only optical recognition.
Re: GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'
#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.
Re: GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'
#4> 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?
Re: GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'
#5> 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?
no, logic says that image recognition is sufficient for human driving expertise-level, but doesn't say anything it being the limit...
Re: GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'
#6> 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?
They have richer and better quality of data already. The cameras never look at their phones and are looking 360 degrees around the car at all times.
Re: GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'
#7> 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?
Computers have advantages in attention span, (lack of) fatigue, and reaction time. Potentially their performance could well surpass humans even without superior sensor abilities.
Re: GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'
#8> 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?
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 as good as non-distracted, expert human drivers, they'd already look super-human compared to the average human.
Still, it's very likely that we can improve faster with better sensors.
Re: GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'
#9Earlier 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…
[deleted]
Re: GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible'
#10Earlier 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?
no, logic says that image recognition is sufficient for human driving expertise-level, but doesn't say anything it being the limit...
[deleted]