No.
> Camera-based autonomy.
That's among the reasons the former isn't true.
> $35k price point
That PR point has largely been abandoned. I mean, nominally they’ll still sell it to you if you jump through hoops, but they’ve deliberately made it less accessible because, as much as it was an important PR point, it was never really viable.
At this point I think it's clear that they have a high chance of succeeding.
And I think the core argument is correct: If you don't have a neural net that can estimate depth from cameras as well as a human, you don't have a viable FSD system. The classifications that the system has to do to actually implement all the requirements of true FSD, is way harder than what's needed to make Lidar redundant with cameras and radar. Lidar is a shortcut to get a proof-of-concept running when your vision system is too weak to actually do full FSD.
> as much as it was an important PR point, it was never really viable.
Of course it's viable. It's just a question of time. It's pretty silly to think that sommehow, right this year, batteries will stop falling in price and Tesla will find no other ways to continue to reduce costs.
I agree that this statement is probably correct. But they're assuming the positive outcome here, and we have no proof that's correct.
In fact, it may well turn out that the current approaches to autonomous driving using neural networks won't ever yield a viable FSD system. In fact I'd take that side of the bet, to be honest.
If you've got some spare time, go read some third party research on how cameras might actually be better. Lidar superiority is a myth. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.07179.pdf
The numbers actually show pseudo-LiDAR being worse in general and significantly worse at longer distances.
"it is plausible that image-based 3D object detection for autonomous vehicle will become a reality in the near future."
The issue isn't whether it works or not. The issue is whether you need LiDAR in the mix as well. And your paper says unequivocally that the answer is "yes we do".
here we go: > Best crash test ratings.
partly false. there are 30 cars in the same category. kias, hyundays you name it.
> Highest owner satisfaction.
partly false. only the model 3 got it. model s was dropped due to how crappy it is.
> First US-owned factory in China. Built in about 6 months.
false. it’s not built. and there are so many other corps out there that own china factories it’s not even funny.
> Willingness and ability to put auto-pilot on the road for consumers.
how many people died because of this?
> Better chip than Nvidia.
proven to be false.
> Top 2 auto battery supplier.
false. that would be Panasonic.
> Dramatically better battery efficiency.
false. same efficiency as a kia.
> No dealerships.
this is very bad.
> Plausible FSD story.
false. debunked.
> $35k price point.
false. they don’t sell $35k cars.
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2017-0037-0037
Model 3 not only the very best results, but by a wider margin.
And the last. Tesla absolutely sells a $35k Model 3: https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-our-vehicle-lineup