You're viewing a single thread.
-
His fucking obsession with computer vision. He’s so convinced he’s right he forgot that clouds exist… and his cars plow straight into obstacles.
-
Yeah, the "lidar is useless" guy whose cars are consistently crashing into things when visibility is bad is telling us that he can do the same thing with missile targeting systems... Sounds like a great idea
-
Yeah, well, missiles are supposed to crash into things. The right things? Not his job.
-
-
Also night
-
Wouldn’t matter for IR vision, which the F-35 already has.
-
And that a plane at altitude is too small for wide field cameras which means scanning the sky with narrow fov detectors.
-
And F-35s are really fast. By the time you recognize and can target it, it'll fly behind a cloud or something. So not only do you need to make a really fast rocket w/ vision-based AI integrated, it also needs to be able to detect said plane at great distances, as well as maneuver well enough to see it as it exits clouds and whatnot. That's a lot more complicated than slapping radar on something with heat tracking at close distances.
-
this has existed for over 2 decades now btw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroFIRST_PIRATE
-
-
-
-
No no. See guessing objects from flat images is much better than using math and lidar. Especially if you may have a flawed llm model.
Given how advanced our math and knowledge of radar is, it is literally stupid to use them.
See, those, radar, lidar and math give you a 3d objects.
Oh, wait. It is the other way around.
-
My friend bought a red car specifically so it could be seen by Tesla's cameras.
-
I have bad news for him. They can't see firetrucks reliably.
-
-
He's not, otherwise he would know that "low light sensitivity" cameras aren't "sensitive in low-light conditions" but "with lower than normal light sensitivity".
In an imaginary world where cameras are way more expensive, he'd absolutely be pushing LiDAR in cars. The metrics he cares about are cost and marketability (cool factor), or money for short.
-