[musebox35]

And that last 5% is the toughest nut to crack. There is a reason waymo is way ahead even if they can not scale. Cameras are passive devices with relatively poor dynamic range and low light behavior. They are nowhere near a match/replacement for the human eye. Just try to picture a 5 year old at dusk or indoors and what you see will not be what you get.

[Rover222]

Agree that the last fiew percentage points are exponentially more difficult each step of the way. What's your metric for saying Waymo is ahead, in terms of tech? They are strictly geo fenced, limited to specific road types, and often get stuck/confused. Also their system is very expensive, and not scalable to million of cars. Your point about cameras seems odd. Cameras have much better low light performance than human eyes. And cars have headlights.

[musebox35]

waymo already has driverless taxi service in a major us city and is expanding. Tesla is in the process. again this is if they cover the last 5%. Scalability arguments wont matter when they can not launch such a service. And no, cmos cameras are close but are not better than the human eye in low light unless you have an ir camera and can flood everywhere with active ir lights. they are certainly inferior in dynamic range. I have been doing vision for more than two decades and I would not be comfortable in a camera only robotaxi at high speed. Certainly not at night or under adverse weather conditions. But this is all speculation of course. Considering fully autonomous driving at scale has been a major unrealised promise for the past 10 years, I stand by my assessment until I see a major advancement in camera technology or affordable active sensors.