this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
206 points (89.0% liked)
Technology
55744 readers
2696 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think mandating lidar specifically by name is right, seeing as computer vision is definitely a software problem. Instead they should mandate some method to detect objects in any light condition + a performance standard, which in practice during certification could mean lidar. Regulations should be as minimal and specific as possible.
Good point. Mandate the ends rather than the means. If they get better functionality with some new tech in a few years, we don't want outdated regulations holding the industry back.
No, it isn't.
If it were only software, don't you think Tesla should be the best of them all, being the pure software shop they are?
But it is a real world problem. Recognizing real objects in real world conditions like weather, natural and artificial lights, temperatures (want some ice on your camera?), winds & storms, all kinds of unforeseen circumstances, other bad drivers, police and firemen...
And that's why that pure software shop is so bad at it, while all the real carmakers shrug... they are used to it since forever.
You can be the best in the world and still not be good enough.
Driving a car around using a dozen cameras pointing in every direction isn't something that's fundamentally impossible. We just can't do it yet.
And don't forget vision is what humans use for navigation as well.
And a lot of them are not good at it
As well as human hearing, human touch, human balance / proprioiception, possibly even smell too.
If a person is rear ended, they might not even see the car that hit them, but they know they're hit based on how the impact moves their body. If a tire blows out on the highway, the first thing a driver might notice is that the steering wheel feels sluggish. I could even imagine a situation where someone driving sees something unusual up ahead and then smells something dangerous, and turns around in time to avoid driving into an active chemical spill. In that situation seeing alone might not be enough to signal the danger.
I would hope that a competent self-driving car design at least incorporates microphones, and some kind of "body" sensors that would notice an impact, notice changes to balance, and so-on.
So you haven't recognized that other car brands' assistance/autonomous systems make less dramatic mistakes?
Literally a different thread about someone dieing from a Cruize self driving car not moving over for an ambulance.
Dying... because he was hit by a human driven car. Maybe the Cruize cars exacerbated the problem, but the original problem was that the victim was hit by a car driven by a human being.