Comment on Tesla Robotaxis Reportedly Crashing at a Rate That's 4x Higher Than Humans
itsathursday@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
Optical recognition is inferior and this is not surprising.
Comment on Tesla Robotaxis Reportedly Crashing at a Rate That's 4x Higher Than Humans
itsathursday@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
Optical recognition is inferior and this is not surprising.
slevinkelevra@sh.itjust.works 19 hours ago
Yeah that’s well known by now. However, safety through additional radar sensors costs money and they can’t have that.
tomalley8342@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Nah, that one’s on Elon just being a stubborn bitch and thinking he knows better than everybody else (as usual). Image
ageedizzle@piefed.ca 16 hours ago
He’s right in that if current AI models were genuinely intelligent in the way humans are then cameras would be enough to achieve at least human level droving skills. The problem of course is that AI models are not nearly at that level yet
CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Also the Human brain is still on par with some of the worlds best supercomputers, I doubt a Tesla has that much onboard processing power.
T156@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Even if they were, would it not be better to give the car better senses?
Humans don’t have LIDAR because we can’t just hook something into a human’s brain and have it work. If you can do that with a self-driving car, why cut it down to human senses?
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 hours ago
Cameras are inferior to human vision in many ways. Especially the ones used on Teslas.
kameecoding@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
I am a Human and there were occasions where I couldn’t tell if it’s an obstacle on the road or a weird shadow…
73ms@sopuli.xyz 3 hours ago
well I mean it’s the one thing that Tesla’s got going for it compared to Waymo which is way ahead of them.
paraphrand@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
just one more AI model, please that’ll do it, just one more, just you wait, have you seen how fast things are improving? Just one more. Common, just one more…
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Image
I NEED ONE MORE FACKIN’ AI MODEL!!
halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 17 hours ago
I don’t think it’s necessarily about cost. They were removing sensors both before costs rose and supply became more limited with things like the tariffs.
Too many sensors also causes issues, adding more is not an easy fix. Sensor Fusion is a notoriously difficult part of robotics. It can help with edge cases and verification, but it can also exacerbate issues. Sensors will report different things at some point. Which one gets priority? Is a sensor failing or reporting inaccurate data? How do you determine what is inaccurate if the data is still within normal tolerances?
More on topic though… My question is why is the robotaxi accident rate different from the regular FSD rate? Ostensibly they should be nearly identical.
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Regular FSD rate has the driver (you) monitoring the car so there will be less accidents IF you properly stay attentive.
The FSD rides with a saftey monitor (passenger seat) had a button to stop the ride.
The driverless and no monitor cars have nothing.
So you get more accidents as you remove that supervision.
73ms@sopuli.xyz 9 hours ago
The unsupervised cars are very unlikely to be involved in these crashes yet because according to Robotaxi tracker there was only a single one of those operational and only for the final week of January.
As you suggest there’s a difference in how much the monitor can really do about FSD misbehaving compared to a driver in the driver’s seat though. On the other hand they’re still forced to have the monitor behind the wheel in California so you wouldn’t expect a difference in accident rate based on that there, would be interesting to compare.
parzival@lemmy.org 17 hours ago
I’m not too sure it’s about cost, it seems to be about Elon not wanting to admit he was wrong, as he made a big point of lidar being useless