• Ocelot@lemmies.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    So he demanded that the driver assistance software be as safe as possible before public release? paving the way for full self driving 6-7 years later? is this a bad thing?

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If he demanded it was as safe as possible, he wouldn’t have refused to add lidar or radar capabilities.

      • Ocelot@lemmies.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I thought the “needs lidar” debate was settled years ago? Lidar cannot read signs. It is also prohibitively expensive to put in vehicles. If you’re going to drive with a neural network you need as much training data as possible, which means as many sensors in as many vehicles as possible.

        If your cameras detect something the lidar does not, you trust the cameras, every time. Lidar can very easily misinterperet the world. It works great for simple robots who need to know where walls are and don’t need to specifially identify animals, people, obstacles, speed bumps, construction zones, etc.

        Theres also the simple fact that humans can drive just fine without having evolved a lidar sensor.

        • severien@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If your cameras detect something the lidar does not, you trust the cameras

          Yes, but if the lidar sees something the cameras doesn’t, you trust the lidar.

          • Ocelot@lemmies.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            Actually, no you don’t. Lidar cannot dentify object’s specifically. Tesla does use lidar in their testing/prototype vehicles and they have to find any instances manually where these systems don’t agree. It always falls back to cameras.

              • Ocelot@lemmies.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s not an EV specific thing. Hundreds of people will die TODAY in traffic related accidents, EV or not. We need to shift away from human drivers entirely.

                • pivot_root@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Unless every last vehicle on the road is suddenly converted to cooperative autonomous systems, the human element and unpredictability will still be present. Even then, wildlife, pedestrians, and unpredictable events will pose a challenge to autonomous vehicles.

                  In a perfect world, FSD would help. In the real world, Tesla’s FSD is a beta feature being spearheaded by a stubborn egomaniac that thinks he knows better than the people actually doing the engineering work. And frankly, I’d rather not spend my money for the privilege of being driven into the side of a concrete barrier down the highway because somebody wants to cut costs and place style above function.

        • Ocelot@lemmies.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly. Also lidar is important in instances where you need millimeter precision. Its useful for calibrating camera systems in self driving cars but in order to drive safely you don’t need that level of detail about the world around the car. It makes no difference if a car or pedestrian is 72 or 73 inches away.

        • pivot_root@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          For a multi-ton metal projectile that drives itself (a car), you want multiple data sources to draw a consensus from. Relying on one data source is a point of failure, and that’s not acceptable when you have the potential to kill not only the driver but others outside the car.

    • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      No he ABSOLUTELY didn’t do that, because it’s very unsafe and he unleashed not only AP but also that total steaming pile that is “FSD”. Which is neither F nor SD.