Re:$100B later, autonomous vehicles are still a car-wreck
by binarymax on Saturday October 15, 2022 @07:29PM
(#33219618)
We have a lot more signal than vision only. For example audio, the “feel of the road”, like feedback on the steering wheel and traction that we physically experience. Most of all we have actual intelligence and reasoning - not just pattern recognition.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:$100B later, autonomous vehicles are still a car-wreck
by adgjlsfhk1 on Saturday October 15, 2022 @09:34PM
(#33220325)
Feel of the road is easy enough to get with the traction control hardware that most modern cars have.
Re:$100B later, autonomous vehicles are still a car-wreck
by dolni on Sunday October 16, 2022 @09:53AM
(#33223623)
Do you drive much? It would be QUITE the stretch to say most drivers have "actual intelligence and reasoning."
Pattern matching for driving is probably better, frankly. You don't have people who are stressed out, pissed off, inattentive or in a hurry doing risky stuff on the road.
Re:$100B later, autonomous vehicles are still a car-wreck
by camgunz on Sunday October 16, 2022 @12:22PM
(#33224813)
Like all drivers I also hate other drivers, but "actual intelligence and reasoning" means "I can tell that person is gonna try and cross the street" or "I can tell that's a picture of a bicycle instead of an actual bicycle". This stuff is hard just by vision alone--humans use a lot of context to reach these conclusions (bicycles don't float, they don't hang out on the side of advertising boards, they aren't 30 ft. tall) that computer vision machines don't have.
Re:$100B later, autonomous vehicles are still a car-wreck
by danuker on Monday October 17, 2022 @10:37AM
(#33234081)
> It would be QUITE the stretch to say most drivers have "actual intelligence and reasoning."
The accidents caused by people with a lapse in judgement are much more memorable than the billions driving safely and preventively every day.