Good luck with getting even more suboptimal solutions with this extra non linearity.
No wonder why when your autonomous cars are plowing into people or walls you have no clue of what is going on.
No wonder why when your autonomous cars are plowing into people or walls you have no clue of what is going on.
Because somehow we accepted that very bad probabilistic solutions to a very tough problem are good enough.
Tesla: But we don't use Lidars!
Holmes: That's the problem.
(IIUC, it is superhuman overall but with some really dumb edgecases where humans go “well that was obviously wrong, why didn’t it see the thing?”)
And frankly, we probably don't want them to match. The main goal should be to make the cars drive better than humans on average, even if they're not perfect. And we know that there will always be edge cases.
A system which makes exactly the same mistakes as a competent human but never gets tired, never uses the phone, has 360 degree vision with no blind spots… even that would be a huge improvement over the status quo. On the other hand, a system which crashes because it missed something Joe Average calls obvious when they see the black box pictures on the news… that system will never be trusted enough to replace human drivers, not even when it has a tenth of the fatality rate.