101–110 of 142 posts
Some of this feels very cherry-picked. They’re comparing lidar vs camera on snapshots, when a model will always be continuously built as the scene changes. There’s also one instance where it gives lidar the advantage because it’s mounted on top of the car and can see over signs. What?!
Are they only utilizing one camera? Doesn't Tesla use multiple cameras and radar?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I noticed that too. My understanding of what he said was most AV companies were using the lidar purely for localization (on an HD map) and not for object detection. This was the opposite of my understanding, so his statement was very confusing to me. Anyone able to comment?
You can absolutely use lidar pointclouds for object detection. It can be hard with low resolution lidar in a cluttered environment, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elon is an eternal optimist that truly believes that the tech will catch up with his goals.
To be fair, though: Elon is shipping actual vehicles. I mean, I think the GM and Waymo offerings look great too, but I can't buy one. Even granting the premise that LiDAR is going to be a firm requirement, it's not clear to me that Tesla is actually behind the curve on real products. Adding a LiDAR system (or buying one from Waymo) to a Tesla seems naively simpler than finishing and shipping a whole new system from s…
Eg, it seems like they are taking the "figure it out later" approach, but they limited what they can work with to just camera information. Which to me is a shame. I'd like to see Tesla's model with lots of inputs.
Then again, I don't ship these cars, so I'm probably being ignorant :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I was younger I remember hearing about how we can do all these things because we have 2 eyes. And that depth perception is what gives us the ability to not walk into walls, and do other things including driving. I have thought about this many times and often wondered why when closing one eye I am still able to function. Sense then I have thought strongly that having depth perception is used for training some oth…
Fun trick: Look at a photograph with one eye closed. Your brain will do ... something and the picture will look 3d
It’s always better to have multiple sensor modalities available. This is the main takeaway. Unsurprising but interesting nonetheless. I'm working in the field and it confirms my experience. However they have a big bias that need to be pointed out: [...] we must be able to annotate this data at extremely high accuracy levels or the perception system’s performance will begin to regress. Since Scale has a suite of data…
> taking consecutive frames (2D images) we can estimate per pixel depth Yeah, I find it odd that they're bringing up Elon's statement about LiDAR, but then completely ignore that they spoke about creating 3D models based on video. They even showed [0] how good of a 3d model they could create based on dat from their cameras. So they could just as well annotate in 3D. 0: https://youtu.be/Ucp0TTmvqOE?t=8217
Then you'd get all that sweet, sweet depth data that lidar provides but cheaper and at a much higher resolution.
This article is only considering static images. Lidar static "images" necessarily contain depth information so yeah obviously they'll have better depth estimates. But that's really beside the point because the world is not static and any system attempting self-driving will need to take that into account. Using parallax measurements which is what Tesla says they are doing, you can dramatically increase the estimates o…
I am not expert in this field: how tracking actually works with a time dimension? These must be some sort of "state" carried over frame-by-frame? What is the "size" of this state? Objects just do not disappear and reappear for certain frames? This latter effect you can often see on many automatic labeling demos you find on GitHub.
I think it's completely clear at this point that Tesla(or more specifically, Elon Musk) is just simply lying about what their cars will be able to do in the future with existing hardware. Don't get me wrong - the existing "autopilot" is fantastically good. But it's not going to jump from where it is now to full self driving, no matter how many years or millions are poured into it.
Elon is an eternal optimist that truly believes that the tech will catch up with his goals.
What if we have sensors/cameras/etc along the road and they feed data to whichever car is there? And if we also have cars share their sensor data? Would that speed things up in terms of achieving full autonomy?
Yes, drastically. But with it you bring new fears of how that data will be used by the government. You could also achieve something similar by forcing all vehicles to have embedded sensors that real time share data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The handover will be after the car stops because it’s confused. If there is no cell network or no operator available the car is simply stranded on the side of the road, just as after a mechanical failure. Operators can’t help “unknown situations” while moving.
In many places like bridges, hills, and congested city streets there is literally no road shoulder, no safe place to stop. When existing cars break down in those locations they end up blocking a traffic lane and frequently get hit from the rear by a drunk or distracted driver.
The real world is a very very messy place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's 200-300k cars out there with just cameras + radar and their bet is the software catches up to the rhetoric. Adding lidar is next to impossible on the current fleet and adds to the cost if they start now. It is an early design bet which the coders now have to meet.
But no car sold yet (or in the coming decade) will have close to “full autonomy”. Not even close.