News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Text Messages Between Travis Kalanick and Anthony Levando... by tim333 on Tuesday August 15, 2017 @06:44PM (#15023428)
Incidentally, Musk's take: "The whole road system is meant to be navigated with passive optical or cameras and so once you solve camera vision then autonomy is solved if you don't solve vision it's not solved so that that's why our focus is so heavily on having a vision neural net that's very effective for road conditions." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv7qL1mcxcw&feature=youtu.be...
Re:Text Messages Between Travis Kalanick and Anthony Levando... by ariwilson on Tuesday August 15, 2017 @07:51PM (#15023815)
Why would you want to limit yourself to passive cameras and make your life harder? This is like limiting yourself to flapping bird wings to make airplanes.
Re:Text Messages Between Travis Kalanick and Anthony Levando... by erikpukinskis on Tuesday August 15, 2017 @10:39PM (#15024566)
No, it's like limiting yourself to using skis to move down a ski slope. He's right: the roads are design to be navigated using vision. Signage, regulations, paint, curbs, etc. There's no proof that you could safely navigate the roads with LIDAR, but we prove every time we drive that you can do it with vision.

And sure, there might be a better way to get down a ski slope, but skis would be a pretty good starting point. And they guarantee you don't end up in an impossible situation because you're doing things a fundamentally different way than the system expects.

Re:Text Messages Between Travis Kalanick and Anthony Levando... by makomk on Wednesday August 16, 2017 @07:11AM (#15026550)
They're designed to be navigated using human vision, which has very different characteristics in terms of dynamic range, resolution, processing pipeline, inferring details about the scene based on past experiences, etc than machine vision.
Re:Text Messages Between Travis Kalanick and Anthony Levando... by aianus on Tuesday August 15, 2017 @09:41PM (#15024337)
Because not everyone can afford to spend $20k on extra sensors that make the car 1% safer. And holding back autonomous cars until they're perfect can kill more people than near-perfect autonomous cars. It's an economic tradeoff like any other.
Re:Text Messages Between Travis Kalanick and Anthony Levando... by stouset on Tuesday August 15, 2017 @09:36PM (#15024316)
His thesis is that relying on cameras makes it easier, since the entire preexisting road network is literally designed around optical navigability.

Adding other sensors isn't free. Every minute you spend on developing techniques to process inputs from other sensors, not to mention integrating their conclusions with that of other sensors, is time, money, and energy you could have used to improve your optical system.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree (though I find his position intuitively compelling), but he clearly thinks that it's easier, faster, and cheaper to bring an optical-only system to a point of reliability than it is to bring a mixed-sensor system to the same point.

Re:Text Messages Between Travis Kalanick and Anthony Levando... by loceng on Tuesday August 15, 2017 @07:46PM (#15023800)
It's interesting if you consider we have 2 eyes [cameras] and we drive under all conditions, and under bad driving conditions - if you're sane - you slow down or even completely stop and pull over with your 4-ways on. When I've been in very heavy rain downpours on the highway, it feels like I'm only driving because I'm able to follow the flow of lights in front of me as having a bunch of guidance points - autonomous vehicles could likely do a much safer job of this..
Re:Text Messages Between Travis Kalanick and Anthony Levando... by canoebuilder on Tuesday August 15, 2017 @11:49PM (#15024827)
So just from reading the pulled quote, is he saying current road users, i.e. humans, navigate using a passive optical system, i.e. our eyes take in photons, they don't emit lasers, but our eyes are also components of a general intelligence, does "solving vision" entail development of a general intelligence?