• jj4211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    55 minutes ago

    Lets assume that a human driver would fall for it, for sake of argument.

    Would that make it a good idea to potentially run over a kid just because a human would have as well, when we have a decent option to do better than human senses?

    • RickC137@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 hours ago

      What makes you assume that a vision based system performs worse than the average human? Or that it can’t be 20 times safer?

      I think the main reason to go vision-only is the software complexity of merging mixed sensor data. Radar or Lidar alone also have their limitations.

      I wish it was a different company or that Musk would sell Tesla. But I think they are the closest to reaching full autonomy. Let’s see how it goes when FSD launches this year.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        55 minutes ago

        Somehow other car companies are managing to merge data from multiple sources fine. Tesla even used to do it, but stopped to shave a few dollars in their costs.

        In terms of assuming there would be safety concerns, well this video clearly demonstrates that adding lidar avoids three scenarios, at least two of them realistic. As I said my standard is not “human driver” but safest options as demonstrated.