[seanhunter]

> humans manage with just vision

this is commonly repeated but very obviously untrue.

We don't only have vision. We have a general intelligence, coupled with vision. In the absence of AGI, the base assumption has to be the sensor apparatus needs to be significantly superior to humans for an FSD system to drive at a comparable level.

[vel0city]

Not to mention it is also untrue because we use senses other than just vision when we drive. We use our ears for acceleration information, sometimes hearing, and the feeling of the wheel when we drive.

[fooker]

We don't have anything close to LIDAR though

[seanhunter]

And a car doesn't have anything close to a human brain.

Humans process sensory data in a fundamentally different way to anything that's possible for a self-driving car. The idea that we should base the decision about the sensors on what humans have just fundamentally makes no sense.

Lidar substitutes hardware for something which humans find easy and CV systems find hard - creating a map of the environment. Humans do that by using a brain. CV systems based purely on video really struggle to do that in lots of edge cases. You can shortcut that in a car by using something like lidar.

[fooker]

You are right.

Would you agree then, that if the goal was to develop AGI, just relying on vision is a credible choice?

[seanhunter]

No. Why should the design parameters for AGI be limited by what a human can do? If the goal was AGI then I'd want all kinds of additional sensor input that humans don't have.

[fooker]

Once it's a solved problem, yes, it makes sense to think about design parameters.

When learning how to solve problems, that is not as helpful.