I think claiming it "will never be delivered" is probably wrong as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBq9NcITh6o
Edit: I'd love to know why I'm being downvoted. Tesla cars guess depth with a neural net. Humans have the hardware for getting this data directly. Unless you either have lidar, radar, or dedicated stereoscopic cameras, you don't have real/accurate depth data. And depth data like that stops your car from plowing into white trucks.
And moreover, it's lucky at best if my Model 3 acknowledges a car 20m away on the preview. It struggles with cars a few feet from me on the diagonal at stoplights.
If you close one eye, do you really feel like your ability to determine depth is significantly impacted?
And even then, the stereo effect is basically negligible at the distances relevant for driving.
A human missing one eye would have no trouble driving, except maybe for the reduced field of view.
It’s a clever bit of snark, but absurdly wide of the mark. If that’s actuary what the Tesla engineers think, no wonder they’re failing by their own criteria so completely.
The (not explicitly made) sub-claim is that an AI can make up for the lack of audio, etc. by being smarter than a human and faster than a human, better able to multi-task than a human, and completely non-distractible. That's debatable, but not impossible.
But names aren't everything, and artificial neutral networks are "inspired by" but in truth drastically different from human brains.
That's it. That's the total resemblance between the two. The brain isn't just an NN implemented in biology, it has whole systems that aren't accounted for in digital NNs, like hormones and neurotransmitters, and even the system of connected neurons doesn't work the way digital NNs implement it.
Neural networks model the brain exactly as well as objects in OOP model cells: not very well at all. They're inspired by biology, nothing more.
This strikes me as a pretty odd statement to make, personally!
“There is no real comparison” - for the benefit of the less informed, please make the comparison, assuming you are able.
The only way I could imagine that we are superior to phone cameras is stabilisation, something that could be resolved with vertical integration that informs the sensors and image processing units about forces being applied to the vehicle (though this is coming from somebody outside the field so take it with many grains of salt).
If you use a pair of digital sensors with a 15 stop exposure offset between them (seems fair - humans have two…), thats ~30 stops in a single shot if we assume best we get is 15 from a digital sensor. Again though with high-speed exposure blending and one sensor this is not really necessary in a lot of cases.
The practical reality is digital capture can exceed 21 stops and you don’t need particularly fancy equipment to do it. Two decent cellphone grade sensors (~12-14 stops) would be enough if you don’t want to do single sensor blends and would work well for real-time video applications.
- sound
- touch
- equilibrioception (balance)
- proprioception
- and surely there are more
Think of the visceral difference between driving a car in real life, vs driving a car on a screen in a video game.
being easy to drive with a steering wheel in a driving game, and being easy to drive a real car with a steering wheel (with internet level latency and packet loss at play, mind you) are very different things
Sure, but I don't think it's that different than driving a real car looking out a monitor sized windshield. You might lose some braking and cornering without your inertial perceptions. But you'd still be able to driver around easily.
Either way I think a speedometer is an assumed input for a self driving car and from that you can calculate almost everything needed related to proprioception.
You could however argue that the current computer isn't powerful enough to run the software required for vision based L3/L4.
I have doubts about that. I wouldn't want to remotely drive that without much better cameras at the very least. Advanced planning to be in the right lane or avoid obstacles is hard when the details are just a couple pixels.
And even if it were true, so what? Last I checked Tesla didn’t have software which can perfectly emulated a human agent.
GP was arguing against:
> The feature is impossible to implement with the sensor suite that comes with the car.
_For that statement_ it's immaterial whether Tesla does something right now, but rather whether it's in principle possible. Modulo your previous objection humans provide a counterexample to that (very general) statement.