| > Why is absolute depth a strict safety win? How do you know how the sensor details translate to the final safety of the full system? If you can get reliable depth information, the algorithm needed to avoid hitting stationary and slow-moving objects is extremely simple. Is the stationary object in our path, of nontrivial size, and about to enter our minimum stopping distance? If yes, do we have a swerve planned that will let us safely avoid it? If no, emergency stop. Because this logic is simple and well defined you can audit the implementation to the high standards applied to things like aircraft autopilot systems. And it'll work even if the stationary object is something that didn't appear in your training data - you know the algorithm will work the same even if that concrete barrier is painted with some cheery flowers, or if that fire truck is airport yellow instead of the normal red. Of course, this relies on the assumption you can get reliable depth information. If your depth sensor gets confused by a cloud of dust while driving in the desert, or gets blinded by the light of the setting sun, or is unable to detect a barbed wire fence, things are no longer quite so simple.... > If this is just a handwavey upper bound on safety, how do you know that such a system can’t be safe enough for its design goals? Personally I would say that in freeway driving, a self-driving car should be able to avoid 100% of collisions with clearly visible stationary objects in dry, well lit conditions when all system components are in normal working condition. |