News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Nvidia on new self-driving system: “basically 5 years ahe... by TaylorAlexander on Saturday November 12, 2016 @02:41PM (#12939760)
Humans don't use accurate depth maps to drive.

Machine learning is great at complex algorithms if done well.

Re:Nvidia on new self-driving system: “basically 5 years ahe... by onion2k on Saturday November 12, 2016 @05:29PM (#12940565)
Humans don't use accurate depth maps to drive.

Humans are very good at estimating distance from a combination parallax visual cues and experience. We don't need to have seen a specific model of car before to judge how far away it is with a high level of accuracy.

Re:Nvidia on new self-driving system: “basically 5 years ahe... by TaylorAlexander on Saturday November 12, 2016 @11:35PM (#12941891)
Machine learning techniques are also being used to evaluate depth using parallax and other cues.

And humans aren't good at estimating distance. They're good at estimating relative distance which is different. Some people claim we need LIDAR because cameras can't give us accurate depth information but humans don't use accurate depth information.

Are you saying these systems need to have seen a specific model of car in the past before they can determine its distance? Certainly I've seen systems that do not require that information.

Re:Nvidia on new self-driving system: “basically 5 years ahe... by agumonkey on Saturday November 12, 2016 @07:50PM (#12941158)
Reminds me how much I hate the average mirror. They force me to lost frontal depth by focusing on sides. I tried driving while looking aside for a minute, it's impressive how much your peripheral vision is meaningless then, even at 5mph you're never sure how far the car before you is.
Re:Nvidia on new self-driving system: “basically 5 years ahe... by kybernetikos on Sunday November 13, 2016 @02:55AM (#12942356)
Humans can drive well with vision in only one eye, so it seems like even binocular vision isn't necessarily as important as some of those cues and experience.
Re:Nvidia on new self-driving system: “basically 5 years ahe... by quotemstr on Sunday November 13, 2016 @03:16AM (#12942396)
We use non-binocular depth cues beyond ten meters or so.
Re:Nvidia on new self-driving system: “basically 5 years ahe... by kchoudhu on Saturday November 12, 2016 @03:01PM (#12939872)
Do the newer systems assume network connectivity to a backend processing facility?

Personally, I view each additional layer (network, someone else's data center, machine learning) to be something that can fail and put people in danger. Assurance via local brute force is much more reassuring for me.

Re:Nvidia on new self-driving system: “basically 5 years ahe... by seanmcdirmid on Saturday November 12, 2016 @03:25PM (#12939978)
I can't see a system where processing is done remotely as working very well, nor is it very necessary as the hardware requirements shouldn't be that high. Training could definitely occur in a data center, but that is done offline.
Re:Nvidia on new self-driving system: “basically 5 years ahe... by TaylorAlexander on Saturday November 12, 2016 @11:38PM (#12941899)
No. The current Tesla Autopilot v2 system has 8 cameras and must be able to react in milliseconds. They do the computation onboard with an Nvidia Drive PX2 computer.

https://www.tesla.com/presskit/autopilot#autopilot