- The scary effect music shows it's intended as a hit piece.
- The constant intermixing of Autopilot and Full Self Driving, two very different things.
- Implying that driving just based on visual input is unsafe, when that is how all humans drive.
Of course, that the video is an unserious hit piece doesn't mean these Tesla features are safe. But I need something more serious to be convinced.
Except that's not at all how humans drive. Sure, there's visual input, but human vision is largely based on expectations. You see what you expect and ignore a lot of things. The predictive engine of the brain does a lot more than evaluate the present environment. This is both good and bad insofar as safety is concerned.
Not really clear what the argument is meant to be here...
Should I go on? This is trivial stuff, man.
An interesting question might be if the automation system can be evaluated against the human perceptual system, or amalgamation of systems. This seems like an exceedingly difficult premise to evaluate though, given the varied and dynamic nature of the real-world driving environment.
Your argument that human processing is superior to Tesla processing seems orthogonal (that's about how the data is handled, not about what input data is available).
I think I would concede the argument that it's "just processing" once someone has recreated the processing in an automation system. That seems unlikely. Or when an automation system outperforms a human in every situation one might encounter in a chaotic driving environment.
Your analogy is a bad-faith definition of orthogonal.
That's all I meant to say.
> ... Teslas have at least as good a visual input system as humans, so that alone can't be a reason they're worse drivers.
I don't think that's an accurate description of the original claim. At this point I do wish it had been. This perpetuates the discarding of how past experience affects perception, which seems like part of the "visual input system" of humans to me.
Implying that driving just based on single-eye 20/120 vision [1] is safe, when that is in fact illegal.
Pretty wild to see several comments condemning their imaginary single camera system. Where do these lies come from?
Here is a diagram: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Locations-of-cameras-on-...
First of all, it is convenient that you ignored the part about 20/120 vision which is below the legal minimum requirements for driving and thus no human is legally allowed to drive with such poor vision.
As for your misunderstanding, a human has two eyes placed in a binocular orientation on a swivel mount allowing for binocular depth perception when the head is pointed in a direction. That is how humans drive.
Except for the forward direction, the Tesla cameras have largely non-overlapping fields of view. As they are not mounted on a swivel, they only have single-eye vision in any non-forward direction. In the forward direction, the Tesla cameras do have overlapping fields of view, but are not only too close to support binocular perception, they also have different focal distances preventing binocular perception. As such, Teslas only have single-eye vision in the forward direction as well. So, they only have single-eye perception for objects.
Adding on their visual acuity far below minimum requirements for legal human driving, it is safe to say that their sensors are, in fact, not at all how humans drive. Any manufacturer who would claim as such is making false claims willfully and knowingly.
Or the accident stats that don't count an accident any collision without airbag deployment, regardless of injuries?