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 serious self-driving car/tractor-trailer out there uses radar as a component of its sensor stack because Lidar and simple imaging is not sufficient.
And that's the point I was trying to make - we agree it's trivial for radar to find things they just need sensor fusion to confirm the finding and begin motion planning. This is why a real driverless car is hard despite what Elon would like you to believe. There is no one sensor that will do it. Full stop.
And this cuts to the core of why Tesla is so dangerous. They are making a car with AEB and lane-keeping and moving the goal posts to make people (you included) think that's somehow a sane approach to driverless cars.
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.
A pair of optical sensors and a compute engine vastly superior to anything that we will have in the near future for self-driving cars.
Humans can do fine with driving on just a couple of cameras because we have an excellent mental model (at least when not distracted, tired, drunk, etc.). Cars won't have that solid of a mental model for a long, long time, so sensor superiority is a way to compensate for that.
When we look at the road, we recognize stuff in the images we get as objects, and then most of the work is done by us applying basic logic in terms of those objects - that car is off the side of the road so it's stationary; that color change is due to a police light, not a change in the composition of objects; that small blob is a normal-size far-away car, not a small and near car; that thing on the road is a shadow, not a car, since I can tell that the overpass is casting it and it aligns with other shadows.
All of these things are not relying on optics for interpreting the received image (though effects such as parallax do play a role as well, it is actually quite minimal), they are interpreting the image at a slightly higher level of abstraction by applying some assumptions and heuristics that evolution has "found".
Without these assumptions, there simply isn't enough information in an image, even with the best possible camera, to interpret the needed details.
And Tesla lacks that, so therefore they ought not simply rely on cameras and ought use extra auxiliary systems to avoid danger to their consumers, they are not doing this because it reduces their profit margins, alas, this hn thread
In fairness, humans have a lot more than just optical sensors at their disposal, and are pretty terrible drivers. We've added all kinds of safety features to cars and roads to try to compensate for their weaknesses, and it certainly helps, but they still make mistakes with alarming regularity, and they crash all the time.
When you have a human driver, conversations about safety and sensor information seem so straightforward. The idea of a car maker saving a buck by foregoing some tool or technology at the expense of safety is largely a non-starter.
What's weird is, with a computer driver, (which has unique advantages and disadvantages as compared to a human driver) the conversation is somehow entirely different.
In theory, cars should be use mechanical legs instead of wheels for transportation, that's how animals do it. In theory, plane wings should flap around, that's the way birds do it. My point being: the way biology solved something may not always be the best way to do it with technology.
This is wrong and I was surprised to hear them say it was enough in the video.
We don't have car horns and sirens for your eyes. You will often hear something long before you see it. This is important for emergency vehicles. Once you hear it, a good driver will immediately slow down and pull to the side, or delay movement to give space for the vehicle.
Does this mean self driving vehicles can't detect emergency vehicles until they appear on camera? That's not encouraging.
Our eyes provide distance sensing through focusing, the difference in angle of your two eyes looking at a distant object, and other inputs, as well as having incredible range of sensitivity, including a special high contrast mode just for night driving. This incredibly, literally unmatched camera subsystem is then fed into the single best future prediction machine that has ever existed. This machine has a powerful understanding of what things are (classification) and how the world works (simulation) and even physics. This system works to predict and respond to future, currently unseen dangers, and also pick out fast moving objects.
Two off the shelf digital image sensors WILL NEVER REPLACE ALL OF THAT. There's literally not enough input. Binocular "vision" with shitty digital image sensors is not enough.
Humans are stupidly good at driving. Pretty much the only serious accidents nowadays are ones where people turn off some of their sensors (look away from the road at something else, or drugs and alcohol) or turn off their brain (distractions, drugs and alcohol, and sleeping at the wheel).
That number is probably too high for robots to do though.
Humans are weird like that.
Needs emphasis on can
