• tony@l.bxy.sh
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because the occupancy network is generating a 3d model, you get data that’s equivalent to LiDAR (3d model of space) but with much less cost and complexity. And because you only have one set of sensors, you don’t have to do sensor fusion to resolve discrepancies between different sensors.

    That’s my problem, it is approximating LIDAR but it isn’t the same. I would say multiple sensor types is necessary for exactly the reason you suggested it isn’t - to get multiple forms of input and get consensus, or failing consensus fail-safe.

    I don’t doubt Tesla autopilot works well and it certainly seems to be an impressive feat of engineering, but can it be better?

    In our town we had a Tesla shoot through red traffic lights near our local school barely missing a child crossing the road. The driver was looking at their lap (presumably their phone). I looked online and apparently autopilot doesn’t work with traffic lights, but FSD does?

    It’s not specific to Tesla but people unaware of the limitations level 2, particularly when brands like Tesla give people the impression the car “drives itself” is unethical.

    My opinion is if that Tesla had extra sensors, even if the car is only in level 2 mode, it should be able to pick up that something is there and slow/stop. I want the extra sensors to cover the edge cases and give more confidence in the system.

    Would you still feel the same about Tesla if your car injured/killed someone or if someone you care about was injured/killed by a Tesla?

    IMHO these are not systems that we should be compromising to cut costs or because the CEO is too stubborn. If we can put extra sensors in and it objectively makes it safer why don’t we? Self driving cars are a luxury.

    Crazy hypothetical: I wonder how Tesla would cope with someone/something covered in Vantablack?