Man says CES lidar’s laser was so powerful it wrecked his camera

Re:Man says CES lidar’s laser was so powerful it wrecked his... by rjeli on Friday January 11, 2019 @11:21PM (#18889633)

Writing software for competent self driving is turning out to be really hard, and no one is succeeding. On the other hand, building better and cheaper lidar hardware is a well-defined problem that companies can pour money into. Their software still sucks, but everyone’s occupied with wrangling the $100k lidar.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man says CES lidar’s laser was so powerful it wrecked his... by lsc on Saturday January 12, 2019 @05:23AM (#18890595)

I agree... but I also want to point out that it's totally possible that writing software to make self-driving cars work acceptably well might be easier if the software has better sensors than a human does, so it might actually be the best way to try to solve the problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man says CES lidar’s laser was so powerful it wrecked his... by grenadier21 on Saturday January 12, 2019 @01:39AM (#18890060)

Could some rebel make things like fake road bumps that lidars can't pick up, but humans can?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man says CES lidar’s laser was so powerful it wrecked his... by 01100011 on Saturday January 12, 2019 @02:48AM (#18890230)

Protecting AI against spoofing attacks is a pretty active area of research right now.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man says CES lidar’s laser was so powerful it wrecked his... by paradoxparalax on Saturday January 12, 2019 @06:49AM (#18890810)

Protecting neural networks from adversarial attacks, i think you mean. Protecting good A.I. from spoofing attacks is exactly the same as protecting human drivers from spoofing attacks.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man says CES lidar’s laser was so powerful it wrecked his... by brokenmachine on Sunday January 13, 2019 @07:41PM (#18899707)

Or the other way around - trick the lidar into thinking a road bump is there when there is no bump.

[ Parent | on HN ]