Visual detection only doesn’t work and the man that forced Tesla to use it is now in control of government “efficiency”. This decade’s very dark humor just keeps getting worse.
The problem is that we don't have certification process before a tech is deployed on the streets - your AV must pass this and this tests before you are allowed to use it. We don't care how you got there lidar, gps/astrology, camera/ai are all ok as long as you pass
I have had a Tesla for several years now. The visual object detection display very frequently misidentifies objects. Just the other day, it detected my garage (which the car was parked next to) as a semi truck.
I have never, with my wildly imperfect human vision, mistaken a building for a semi truck.
More to the point of the OP, sometimes objects show up and disappear repeatedly.
As I’ve said in other comments, I think EVs and autonomous driving will eventually improve the lot of humanity greatly, but there’s a lot to be desired in the current tech and not any point in trying to pretend it is better than it really is.
Transient errors happen all the time, but somehow you trust yourself more to keep driving.
What I’ve not done is seen a motocyclist in front of me, then decided it wasn’t really there, and then hit said motorcyclist.
We have zero evidence that vision-based computers are safe enough to drive.
No, we don't.
We have evidence that visual detection (well, the whole human set of senses, but for driving most of the reliance is on visual detection), combined with human level intelligence, is sufficient for the human-level driving which is the absolute minimum bar for fully automated driving.
Which is very different than “visual detection works quite well”.
The signal we get is enough. It is the processing that is still lacking. And that is why there should be benchmarks to be passed. Cameras and microphones do provide enough information for successful driving.
I'm not sure what your point is, but what you actually said overstates the case for visual detection.
> The signal we get is enough.
Sure, we know that with processing far beyond what we currently can replicate, it can at least just meet the minimum bar.
> And that is why there should be benchmarks to be passed
Is it? I would think there should be proof and validation no matter which pieces were demonstrated adequate and which have not yet been.
But the thing is that we don't even know enough to make a set of benchmarks that can be tested that provide confidence, and we maybe won't until we've had the several systems that demonstrate that they work well enough in real conditions from which to generalize a minimum set of standards that can be verified prior to getting into real conditions.
So we do supervised testing in progressively-less-limited real world conditions of each system until we get to that point.
What are you talking about specifically?
But they seem to be conflating human vision with computer vision.