> For one, frame rate and processing rate on human eyes is way higher than cameras.
I don't think it's exciting to say that you must have theoretical parity with something to use it for this use case. Tesla's solution monitors ~6? cameras at once with accurate depth in each. That's 6x more views than a human can see. I wish people would stop comparing apples to oranges.
> Robotaxis need to avoid any accident that a human would be able to avoid.
I never said anything to the contrary. Animals get hit all the time, not just because a human wasn't paying attention.
> Tesla's solution monitors ~6? cameras at once with accurate depth in each
No, the depth is estimated. It's not accurate, at least not in the way you need for L4.
> I never said anything to the contrary. Animals get hit all the time, not just because a human wasn't paying attention.
I was just clarifying what the bar is. The bar is that avoidable accidents need to be avoided. Nobody will get mad if a plane crashes due to unavoidable circumstances (freak accident where two engines go out due to bird strikes or something). People will stop flying in the plane when it becomes clear that the airline is not doing everything it can to avoid fatalities.
I don't think it's exciting to say that you must have theoretical parity with something to use it for this use case. Tesla's solution monitors ~6? cameras at once with accurate depth in each. That's 6x more views than a human can see. I wish people would stop comparing apples to oranges.
> Robotaxis need to avoid any accident that a human would be able to avoid.
I never said anything to the contrary. Animals get hit all the time, not just because a human wasn't paying attention.