> existing sensor suite was proven to be a total joke in actual use
The existing sensor suite was is sufficient for the existing driving assist functions. The existing suite was never expected to be sufficient to provide the predicted, future levels of autodrive.
What do human sensors cover? Primarily our eyes. Have we had sensors that provide about the same dynamic range as our human vision?
I am NOT a part of this field, so please excuse my presumption.
I believe that most/all(?) current/previous 'automated control' systems used sensors that were lower resolution than our eyes, but that also provided some indication of range data.
Do our eyes provide distance data? I think that data is calculated with quite a bit of accuracy in our brains.
Again, I'm not part of this field, so this is just speculation.
In theory, given a fast enough computer and advanced enough algorithm, given nothing but visual input streams no more advanced than are available with existing optics, could a car autopilot not be just as good a driver as a human?
The existing sensor suite was is sufficient for the existing driving assist functions. The existing suite was never expected to be sufficient to provide the predicted, future levels of autodrive.
What do human sensors cover? Primarily our eyes. Have we had sensors that provide about the same dynamic range as our human vision?
I am NOT a part of this field, so please excuse my presumption.
I believe that most/all(?) current/previous 'automated control' systems used sensors that were lower resolution than our eyes, but that also provided some indication of range data.
Do our eyes provide distance data? I think that data is calculated with quite a bit of accuracy in our brains.
Again, I'm not part of this field, so this is just speculation.
In theory, given a fast enough computer and advanced enough algorithm, given nothing but visual input streams no more advanced than are available with existing optics, could a car autopilot not be just as good a driver as a human?