[adgjlsfhk1]

The counterargument to this is that since humans reach acceptable safety levels with vision only, it must be possible to do self driving with vision only. That said, augmenting vision with other methods does seem like a no brainer for better performance.

[binarymax]

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.

[adgjlsfhk1]

Feel of the road is easy enough to get with the traction control hardware that most modern cars have.

[dolni]

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.

[camgunz]

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.

[danuker]

> 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.

[daydream]

The counterargument to THAT is that human safety levels aren’t acceptable. They are tolerable perhaps, but I wouldn’t call the number of accidents and fatalities we have today acceptable.

[ben_w]

The average human isn't acceptable, but in principle a system like this should still be better than the best human just because it has more cameras than humans have eyeballs and they can arranged so there are no blind spots, and even with just two cameras placed (for no good reason) inside the cabin should be able to reach the performance of the best human all of the time.

Current AI isn't that, but in principle it could get there.

[tim333]

Though human accidents are seldom due to the inherent limitations of vision.

[kelnos]

That counterargument only holds if Tesla can build software that can approximate the human brain. I think it's laughable to expect they can do that, at least on any reasonable timeframe.

Even if they could, a goal of self driving should be to do better than a human driver. Avoiding technology that can "see" in ways a human cannot is just short-sighted, and a huge missed opportunity.

And all that still even ignores the fact that many common environmental conditions make driving only with human eyes very unsafe. Think fog or heavy rain. A car relying only in cameras to drive in those situations will be next to useless.

[evandijk70]

Why is it laughable that Tesla can build software that approximates the human brain? There is software that is better at chess, better at go and better at poker than humans. Why is driving so special?

Agree with your other points.

[rnjesus]

i agree with the principle of your comment, but pure games like the ones you mentioned seem like they would be much easier for a machine to solve. traffic and driving are more complex and require much faster response times, not to mention the high variability (and the literal speed) of factors

[c7b]

Two thoughts: how sure are you that the safety levels achieved by humans during bad vision would be considered acceptable for AVs? And secondly: humans have access to a reasonable (non-artificial) general intelligence.

[nuker]

> since humans reach acceptable safety levels with vision only

No AI (reasoning) exists yet, only Machine Learning. It will take decades if not centuries.

[ben_w]

Even ignoring that "AI" is generally accepted as a term of art:

What do you mean by "reasoning", such that there is no example of a ML system that does this?

[nuker]

Nope, not one. And not on any car for sure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_reasoning

From actual AI wiki article: “highly mathematical-statistical machine learning has dominated the field”. This will never be able to drive as good as humans.

[ben_w]

None of what you have written answers my question (my question wasn't a yes/no one), your quotation isn't in the link, the link is full of examples of things which constitute automated reasoning, and there's no reason for me to doubt the possibility of ML ever achieving what is currently being done by the large number of tiny warm bags of chemicals that is an organic brain.

[bsder]

> The counterargument to this is that since humans reach acceptable safety levels with vision only

100+ car pileups in Southern California checking in to provide a counterexample.

The patchy fog in Southern California on I-5 can go from "not too bad" to "can't see your own hood" in a matter of seconds. Radar is going to catch hazards WAY before a human will.

[Nomentatus]

My thinking is similar. Removing ultrasound may in the end be more of a legal decision than a purely technical one. I suspect neither humans nor ultrasound can deliver real safety under fog conditions or blizzard conditions; so it may be best to clearly fold under truly difficult conditions and cut lawsuits vs Tesla for fog crashes off at the pass. If drivers want to drive in fog; they will be entirely responsible for the results and can hardly argue otherwise.

This leaves the question of moving to radar, but for precise resolution well ahead of the vehicle you need microwaves and a lot of power, I would guess - which reduces the vehicle's range. For all I know you might parboil passersby, too. One old Mig had a radar that would kill and roast rabbits on the runway as it took off, but that's a much different use case, of course.