You're already driving on roads shared with garbage solution like tesla's '''autopilot''' this thing is no different other than the creators not being able to afford the regulatory bribe to deploy it.
It's a completely different product with a much wider number of configurations that end-users have to piece together from Wiki pages and packages they download themselves, loaded onto hardware they've installed in their cars with zero oversight from anyone qualified.
> end-users have to piece together from Wiki pages and packages they download themselves
Which makes it a ton safer than '''autopilot''' because by the time those users are done installing it they have a pretty clear understanding of its capabilities and limitations.
vs. the endless videos of morons driving tesla in '''autopilot''' mode with hands off the wheel because it's an incomprehensible black box of magical self-driving capability for them.
The regulator hasn't stopped tesla autopilot from causing accidents. It's just a competitive moat.
And yet all of those resources have amounted to what all regulators agree is a SAE level 2 system, only qualified for hands-on lane-keeping assist, exactly like you'll find on a modern Mazda or any other number of cars without any of that hardware or ML PHDs.
Sort of proving the point that the resource pool of the incumbent doesn't necessarily translate to the value of the product.
Comma is bragging about 6 million miles drive. Tesla's Autopilot has over 2 billion miles driven. This has two cameras (EDIT: and apparently 1 radar that already exists in the vehicle). Tesla's has 12 cameras, 12 sonars, and 1 radar. This is backed by a company that apparently has received $8 million in funding. Autopilot is backed by a company with a market cap of $84 billion. You are welcome to your opinion of Tesla's product, but if that is garbage, I can't image the word you should use to describe this because the two products are in no way comparable.
You're listing specs which are a proxy for how much money the incumbent has, and saying that the regulatory barrier should be set at those specs for some reason.
None of those specs give any indication to the relative safety of the two systems though. And this is exactly what incumbents want. They want a small player to have to match their massive cash holdings to enter their market, even if the small player has a better product.
Here's some food for though: Tesla has been slapped with multiple lawsuits for misleading advertising of Autopilot. Regulators all agree that Autopilot is just an SAE level 2 system, same like those found on much cheaper cars with far less hardware and none of the marketing oversell.
I listed miles driven. That is a direct indicator of safety.
I also listed the number and type of inputs each system has. This might correlate with money, but it clearly also correlates with safety. One simple example, it is impossible for the Comma system to have 360 degree visual coverage of what is around you with just two cameras in the locations they are in.
Tesla does not use 12 cameras for autopilot. It just uses radar and 1 or 2 of the front facing cameras depending on the version. Not really different from OpenPIlot.
You're making a lot of really wild assumptions about what correlates with safety without a shred of evidence to back it up.
Humans have two eyes, a pretty narrow field of view, no radar, no sonar. By your logic they're even worse, yet theyre so much better than Autopilot that it's unattainable for it to match.
>You're making a lot of really wild assumptions... without a shred of evidence to back it up.
>Humans have two eyes... yet theyre so much better than Autopilot that it's unattainable for it to match.
These two statements are pretty ironic back to back.
I'm not sure if we are ever going to convince each other of anything if we can't agree that there is a clear difference in track record when one product has been used for 2 billion miles and the other for 6 million.
