Tesla is spending upwards of $6B/year to Waymo’s $1.5B. Only one of these companies makes an autonomous robotaxi that’s actually autonomous.
Of course you do, you're driving at much higher speeds and so is the surrounding traffic. You can't just guess what you might be looking at, you have to make clear decisions promptly. Lidar is excellent in that case.
Neither do cameras, or eyeballs.
I've been in zero-road-speed whiteout conditions several times. The only move to make is to the side of the road without getting stuck, and turning on your flashers.
Low-light cameras would not have worked. Sonar would not have worked. Infrared would not have worked.
If we could make sensors that lets an autonomous vehicle drive reliably in any snow/rain where a human could drive (although carefully) then we're good. But we are a long way from that. Especially since a lot of sensor tech like cameras tend to fail in 2 ways, both through their performance being worse in adverse condition but also simply failing to function at all if they are covered in ice/snow/water.
Then again, it's good that we have self-driving companies with lidar and without — we will find out which approach wins.
1) it's not cheap to produce lidars at a stable predictable quality in millions;
2) car driving training data sets for lidars are much scarcer (and will always be much scarcer due to cameras' higher prevalence) and at a much lower quality;
3) combined camera+lidar data sets are even scarcer.
2+3. BYD collects extensive training data from customers, much like Tesla does. They will have no trouble with training.
It wasn't cheap to produce accelerometers at a stable predictable quality in millions before smart phones either. Mass production shakes things up somewhat. See the headline for reference.
Computer vision does not work exactly like human vision, closely equating the two has tended to work out poorly in extreme circumstances.
High performance fully automated driving that relies solely on vision is a losing bet.
Also, military sensor use shows the best answer is to have as many different types of sensors as possible and then do sensor fusion. So machine vision, lidar, radar, etc.
That way you pick up things that are missed by one or more sensor types, catches problems and errors from any of them, and end up with the most accurate ‘view’ of the world - even better than a normal human would.
It’s what Waymo is doing, and they also unsurprisingly, have the best self driving right now.
Hmm. Is it ragebaiting to respond to a tired and wrong statement by saying that it's tired and wrong and that the situation is merely the product of piss poor management decisions? People get understandably frustrated seeing the same wrong talking point that people with domain knowledge in computer vision and robotics have repeatedly explained is wrong in extremely fundamental ways.
> I don't own a Tesla.
n.b. The shoe/foot comment was not about you. It was about Musk. It wouldn't make any idiomatic sense for the expression to be about you given what you said and what you were responding to. If they'd said "pot, meet kettle", then it would have been about you. In that context, saying that you don't own a Tesla feels like a weird thing for you to insert in your comment. It potentially comes across as suspiciously defensive.
It's significant that a truly hard problem like autonomous driving doesn't respond to a "brute force" management style. Rockets aren't in this category because the required knowledge and theory is fairly complete, whereas real autonomous driving is completely novel.
It's frustrating to still see it repeated over a decade later. It was always bullshit. It was always a lie.
also regulators gather srastics and if cars with something do better they will mandate it.
The reasoning was simply that LIDAR was (and incorrectly predicted to always be) significantly more expensive than cameras, and hypothetically that should be fine because, well, humans drive with only two eyes.
Musk miscalculated on 1) cost reduction in LIDAR and 2) how incredible the human brain is compared to computers.
Having similar sensors certainly doesn't guarantee your accidents look the same, so I don't think your logic is even internally sound.
The response to the challenge shouldn't be whittling down your sensor-suite to a single type, but to get good at sensor fusion.
We have lots of evidence of similar strategies being used in other domains, this seems like an especially life-critical domain that ought to have high rigor and standards applied.
One of Udacity's first courses was on self-driving, taught by Sebastian Thrun who later cofounded Waymo. He went through some Bayesian math that takes a collection of lidar points, where each point contributes to a probabilistic assessment of what's really going on. It's fine if different points seem to contradict each other, because you're looking for the most likely scenario that could produce that combined sensor data. Transformers can do the same sort of thing, and even with different sensor types it's still the same sort of problem.
And, less excusable, ignorant of how incredible human eyes are compared to small sensor cameras. In particular high DR in low light, with fast motion. Every photographer knows this.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378671275/figure/fi...
Moving the head/body goes a little further, but that was not my point.
This is a difficult problem to solve and perhaps a pragmatic approach was/is to make your life as simple as possible to help get to a fully working solution, even if more expensive, then you can improve cost and optimise.
He wanted (needed?) to get on the hype train for self driving to pump up the stock price, knew that at the time there was zero chance they could sell it at the price point lidar required at the time - or even effective other sensors (like radar) - and sold it anyway at the price point that people would buy it at, even though it was not plausibly going to ever work at the level that was being promised.
There is a word for that. But I’m sure there are many lawyers that will say it was ‘mere fluffery’ or the like. And I’m sure he’ll get away with it, because more than enough people are complicit in the mess.
Miscalculation assumes there was a mistake somewhere, but near as I can tell, it is playing out as any reasonable person expected it too, given what was known at the time.
If the data were positive for Tesla, Tesla would publish it
They do not, so one can infer it is not flattering
(Before you post the "Miles driven with FSD" chart, you should know upfront (as Tesla must) that chart doesn't normalize by age of vehicle or driving conditions and is therefore meaningless/presumably designed to deceive)
Given that Musk has a history of driving lower costs, it's unlikely he overestimated the long-term cost floor. He just thought we were close to self-driving in 2014.
Another factor is Andrej Karpathy, who was the primary architect for the vision-only approach. Musk wanted fewer parts, and Karpathy believed he could deliver that. Karpathy is still an advocate of vision-only.
It is pretty incredible but people will (rightly so?) hold automated drivers to an ultra high standard. If automated driving systems cause accidents at anywhere near the human rate, it'll be outlawed pretty quickly.
This is evidently false. Robotaxi crash rates exceed human drivers', but there's not an effective regulatory agency to outlaw them!
https://futurism.com/advanced-transport/tesla-robotaxis-cras...
Tesla notes:
> These assumptions may contain limitations with respect to reporting criteria, unreported incident estimations (e.g., NHTSA estimates that 60% of property damage-only crashes and 32% of injury crashes are not reported to police
Why is it clearly false? It might be false, but clearly? I would definitely like to see evidence either way.
> I think it's far more likely that humans don't report most minor collisions to insurance, and that both Robotaxis and Waymo are safer than human drivers on average.
That sounds like you are trying to find reasons to get the conclusion you want.
If you go to the NHTSA's page regarding their Standing General Order[2] and download the CSV of all ADS incidents[3], you can filter where the reporting entity is Waymo and find 520 rows. If you filter where the vehicle was stopped or parked, you'll find 318 crashes. If you scan through the narrative column, you'll see things like a Waymo yielding to pedestrians in a crosswalk and getting rear-ended, or waiting for a red light to change and getting rear-ended, or yielding to a pickup truck that then shifted into reverse and backed into the Waymo. In other words: the majority of Waymo collisions are due to human drivers.
So either Waymos are ridiculously unlucky, or when these sorts of things happen between two human driven cars, it's rarely reported to insurance. In my experience, if there's only minor damage, both parties exchange contact info and don't involve the authorities. Maybe one compensates the other for damage, or maybe neither party cares enough about a minor dent or scrape to deal with it. I've done this when someone rear-ended me, and I know my parents have done it when they've had collisions.
If human driven vehicles really did average 229k miles between any collision of any kind, we'd see many more pristine older vehicles. But if you pay attention to other cars on the road or in parking lots, you'll see far more dents and scratches than would be expected from that statistic. And that's not even counting the damage that gets repaired!
1. See page 13 of https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2025-04/third-am...
2. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-orde...
3. https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ffdd/sgo-2021-01/SGO-2021-01_In...
They might have flipped a switch after that, causing this.
Tesla ""autopilot"" fatalities: 65
Waymo fatalities: 0
By some measures Waymo is actually at -1 fatalities. There has been one confirmed birth of a child in a Waymo. https://apnews.com/article/baby-born-waymo-san-francisco-6bd...
I don't think water is the platform you want to boast about for Teslas.
It's not fair to say that vision based models will "make the same mistakes people do" as >99% of the mistakes people make are avoidable if these issues were addressed. And a computer can easily address all those issues
It may just be faster to make lidar cheap. And lidar can do things humans can't.
“A federal judge” recently “rejected Tesla's request to overturn a $243 million jury verdict over the 2019 crash of an Autopilot-equipped Model S” [1]. If a human supervising still incurs liability, human-like errors, particularly if Waymo and BYD aren’t making them, is a poor defense.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-upholds-243-million-v...
Note that humans do not rely strictly on our eyes as cameras to measure distances. There is a huge amount of inference about the world based on our internal world models that goes into vision. For example, if you put is in a false-perspective or otherwise highly artifical environment, our visual acuity goes down significantly; conversely, people with a single eye (so no parallax-based measurement ability) still have quite decent depth perception compared to what you'd naively expect. Not to mention, our eyes are kept very clean, and maintain their alignment to a very high degree of precision.
Several companies, most notably Tesla, have done this well enough to drive in all manner of traffic. I'm not going to comment about if lidar is strictly needed or not to achieve better-than-human safety, that's yet to be proven one way or another by anyone. The point is that cameras + local inference can do a pretty good job at distance estimation
You can solve this by adding an emitter next to the camera that does something useful, be it just beaconing lights or noise patterns or phase synced laser pulses. And those "active cameras" are what everyone call LIDARs.
"Necessary"? Seems like a straw man, don't you think? I strive to argue against the strongest reasonable claim someone is making.
Lots of reasonable people suggest LIDAR is helpful to fill in gaps when vision is compromised, degraded, or less capable.
People running businesses, of course, will make economic trade-offs. That's fine. But don't confuse, say, Elon's economic tradeoff with the full explanation of reality which must include an awareness that different sensors have different strengths in different contexts.
So, when one thinks about what sensor mix is best for a given application, one would be wise to ask (and answer) such questions as:
- What is the quality bar?
- What sensors are available?
- Wow well do various combinations of sensors work across the range of conditions that matter for the quality bar?
- WRT "quality bar": who gets to decide "what matters"? The company making the cars? The people that drive them? regulators that care about public safety. The answer: it is a complex combination.
It is time to dismiss any claim (or implication) that "technology good, regulation bad". That might be the dumbest excuse for a philosophy I've ever heard. It is the modern-day analogue of "Brawndo's got what plants crave." Smart people won't make this argument outright, but unfortunately, their claims sometimes reduce to this level of absurdity. Neither innovation nor regulation are inherently good nor bad. There are deeper principles in play.
Yes, some individuals would use their self-proclaimed freedom to e.g. drive without seatbelts at 100 mph at night with headlights off. An extreme example, but it is the logical extension of pure individualism run amok. Regulators and anyone who cares about public safety will draw a line somewhere and say "No. Individual stupidity has a limit." Even those same people would eventually come to their senses after they kill someone, but by then it is too late.
I have no proof of course and it might be coincidence, or just difference of mindset between US citizens and Europe citizens. It happened a few times already and to me looks sus.
But if they actually read and not just ctrl+f <company name>, then of course not writing the company name, but hinting at it in an obvious way is no more helpful either.
There is also flagging abuse which effectively kills the comment /post.
Human eyes do not have distance information, either, but derive it well enough from spatial (by ‘comparing’ inputs from 2 eyes) or temporal parallax (by ‘comparing’ inputs from one eye at different points in time) to drive cars.
One can also argue that detecting absolute distance isn’t necessary to drive a car. Time to-contact may be more useful. Even only detecting “change in bearing” can be sufficient to avoid collision (https://eoceanic.com/sailing/tips/27/179/how_to_tell_if_you_...)
Having said that, LiDAR works better than vision in mild fog, and if it’s possible to add a decent absolute distance sensor for little extra cost, why wouldn’t you?
That doesn’t require millions of years of evolution. We can ‘evolve’ it way faster on computers.
For an example, see https://depth-anything.github.io/.
I also think we don’t need good depth estimation to avoid collisions while walking around. The problem is scale-invariant except for the fact that deceleration is superlinear (doubling your speed more than doubles stopping distance), but at walking speed, that effect isn’t very large.
Decent depth estimation is needed for judging foot placement, but that’s at relatively close range.
At driving speed, that changes, but I think you can still get away with rough estimates.
(I’m not saying one shouldn’t use LiDAR, just arguing that we don’t know whether “LiDAR is necessary” is true. Yes, cameras cannot reproduce all aspects of human vision yet, but they also can surpass many aspects of human vision. Examples are resolution and field of view)
Single human eyes do resolve depth perception. Not as good as binocular vision, but you don't loose all depth perception of you lose an eye.
Individual cameras don't have distance information, but you can easily calibrate a system of cameras to give you distance information. Your eyes do this already, albeit not quantitatively. The quantitative part comes from math our brains aren't setup to do in real time.
If this lowers Lidar costs, and Tesla has spent all this time refining the camara technology. Now have both.
Use both.
“Just buy FSD” isn’t a reasonable answer to a problem literally no other automaker suffers from.
It's also recently gotten much worse at lane departure sensing, often confused by snow or slightly faded road markers. Not pleasant to have the alarms go off while calmly and safely driving.
This conversational disconnect is as old as the hills:
1. Person 1 asks "what's wrong" (if it ain't broke don't fix it)
2. Person 2 wants to make something better
My meta-goal here on HN (and many places where people converse) is for people to step back and recognize the conversational context and not fall into the predictable patterns that prevent us from making sense of the world as best as we can.
https://electrek.co/2026/02/17/tesla-robotaxi-adds-5-more-cr...
Well, you did get a chuckle out of me, so that's something!
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~eunsol/courses/data/bitter_lesson...
Because we want self driving cars to be safer than human driven cars.
If humans had built in lidar we would use it when driving.
“We should achieve self driving cars via replicating the human brain” strikes me as an incredibly inefficient and difficult way to solve the problem.
We have a tool that can tell with great accuracy how far away an object is. The suggestion that we should ignore it and rely on cameras that have to guess it because “that’s how humans work” is absurd, frankly.
The problem of understanding what is happening in front of you while driving is preposterously more complicated than just a point cloud of distances. That is .01% of the problem. To solve the remaining 99.99%, you need interpretation of photons and sound waves into a semantic understanding that gives you predictive power to guess how the physical world will evolve and avoid breaking the rules of the road. Show me a mechanized way of understanding the causes of how the physical structure of the world is about to evolve, and I'll show you something that is imitating a human brain, however poorly. The cameras give you _plenty_ of data to determine 3D structure, at a higher resolution than the laser, without being emissive, for cheaper. It's a completely reasonable approach to focus your limited computational hardware on interpreting the data you have instead of adding more modalities with their own limitations that (according to nature) are demonstrably unnecessary.
The world is more complicated than slogans and pitchforks and Elon Bad.
They get into accidents because they make bad decisions and get distracted.
If AI makes better decisions and don't get distracted, the amount of accidents will be greatly reduced compared to humans.
Having lidar is of marginal benefit (but a benefit to be sure) over cameras when you realize what is actually important: proper modeling of the environment, of which cameras are better at providing than lidar.
The focus on lidar is really a red herring. You merely push the computational budget you have to understanding a point cloud instead of vision. You're back to square 1 of "how can I properly model the environment given this sensory modality". This is the part that essentially needs human level understanding of the world that you're missing.
Science would like to point out that rats also can learn to drive
https://theconversation.com/im-a-neuroscientist-who-taught-r...
Whether or not it'll actually work remains to be seen, but it's a perfectly reasonable strategy. One counterargument would be that the bitter lesson can be applied to LIDAR too; you don't have to use that data for feature engineering just because it seems well suited for it.
Phrased a different way, I would expect lidar to help marginally, but it is safer driving in general that will bring down fatalities. This could be done with cameras.
The appeal to human biology and argument against fusion between disparate sensors kinda falls flat when you’re building a world model by fusing feeds from cameras all around the car. Humans don’t have 8 eyes in a 360 array around their head. What they do have is two eyes (super cameras) on ~180 degree swiveling and ~180 degree tilting gimbal. With mics attached that help sense other vehicles via road noise. And equilibrioception, vibration detection, and more all in the same system, all fused. If someone were actually building this system to drive the car, the argument based on “how did you drive here today?” gets a lot stronger. One time I had some water blocking my ear and I drove myself to the hospital to get it fixed. That was a shockingly scary drive — your hearing is doing a lot of sensing while driving that you don’t value until it’s gone.
Why are the commenters not pissed at the dozens of other car companies who have done absolutely nothing in this space? Answer: because it's not nearly as fun to be pissed at Kia or Mercedes or whoever. Clearly they are just enjoying the shared anger, regardless of whether it is justified.
2. Other car companies are properly valued, Tesla is overinflated.
3. Other cars, even basic Hondas, have the same level of self driving as Teslas.
4. Other car companies don't lie to their customers about their capabilities or what they're buying.
This is not true at all. Don't confuse lane assist with self driving. And yes I'm aware people are upset by the "Autopilot" product name they chose for lane assist.
I think the frustration stems from the obvious falsehoods in the advertising, and the doubling-down on the tech, despite the well-documented weaknesses of the implementation.
Surely you already know this, so why pretend otherwise?
There are probably even earlier statements from him against lidar...
And here's one of Elon's mentions (he also has talked about it quite a bit in various spots).
https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1959831831668228450?s=20
Edit: My personal view is that LiDAR and other sensors are extremely useful, but I worked on aircraft, not cars.
- cost (no longer a problem)
- too much code needed and it bloats the data pipelines. Does anyone have any actual evidence of this being the case? Like yes, code would be needed, but why is that innately a bad thing? Bloated data pipelines feels like another hand-wave when I think if you do it right it’s fine. As proven by Waymo.
Really curious if any Tesla engineers feel like this is still the best way forward or if it’s just a matter of having to listen to the big guy musk.
I’ve always felt that relying on vision only would be a detriment because even humans with good vision get into circumstances where they get hurt because of temporary vision hindrances. Think heavy snow, heavy rain, heavy fog, even just when you crest a hill at a certain time of day and the sun flashes you
I would argue that yes, we do use vision but we get that "lidar depth" from our stereo vision. And that used to be why I thought cameras weren't enough.
But then look at all the work with gaussian splatting (where you can take multiple 2d samples and build a 3d world out of it). So you could probably get 80% there with just that.
The ethos of many Musk companies (you'll hear this from many engineers that work there) is simplify, simplify, simplify. If something isn't needed, take it out. Question everything that might be needed.
To me, LIDAR is just one of those things in that general pattern of "if it isn't absolutely needed, take it out" – and the fact that FSD works so well without it proves that it isn't required. It's probably a nice to have, but maybe not required.
You're listening to the road and car sounds around you. You're feeling vibration on the road. You're feeling feedback on the steering wheel. You're using a combination of monocular and binocular depth perception - plus, your eyes are not a fixed focal length "cameras". You're moving your head to change the perspective you see the road at. Your inner ear is telling you about your acceleration and orientation.
Which are a tiny minority. The largest causes of crashes in the US are attention/cognition problems, not vision problems. Most traffic systems in western countries (probably in others, too, but I don't have personal experience), and in particular the US, are designed to limit visibility problems and do so very effectively.
Regardless it is irrelevant to the point. Whatever the number may be, lapses in human visual perception are responsible for some crashes
That sounds like a personal opinion?
Maybe do the bare minimum of research before spouting yours.
DOT says that only 5% of crashes are caused by low visibility during weather events.[1]
In 2023, the combined causes of alcohol, speeding, and distracted driving (all cognitive/attention issues) caused 67% of highway deaths. [2]
I was able to find these in 30 seconds. You did zero research to confirm whether your belief was correct before asserting that my claim was opinion. That's pathetic.
> Regardless it is irrelevant to the point.
And your point is therefore irrelevant to the discussion at hand, because the person you were replying to did not claim that vision had no safety impact, but that it had little safety impact:
> the issue is clearly attention not vision when it comes to humans. if we could actually process 100% of the visual information in our field of view, then accidents would probably go down a shit load.
...and, as we can clearly see, the issue is attention (and some bad decision making), not vision.
[1] https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/weather/roadimpact.htm
[2] https://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/opinion/columns/sa...
“Low visibility during weather events” is a small subset of this.
A ridiculously common example of the limitations of human vision is when people hit curbs parallel parking because of the inherent limitations of relying on depth perception to estimate the exact location of the vehicle when it cannot otherwise be directly seen. Go look in a parking lot and see how common curbed wheels are.
Also, NHTSA estimates that they don’t have any information for 60% of incidents, because they go unreported.
> “Low visibility during weather events” is a small subset of this.
You're still refusing to do the most basic research or even read my comment:
> In 2023, the combined causes of alcohol, speeding, and distracted driving (all cognitive/attention issues) caused 67% of highway deaths.
Do the math. 100% - 67% is 33%. Even literally not opening Google, you can already deduce that the maximum fraction of fatalities caused by vision is 33%.
Given that you aren't interested in reading or researching and instead just want to push your opinion as fact, I think your claims can be safely discarded.
Edit: Because you're editing your comment because you realize that you're making an absolute fool of yourself:
> A ridiculously common example of the limitations of human vision is when people hit curbs parallel parking
A completely irrelevant distraction - this causes virtually zero accidents and even fewer fatalities, and you know it.
> Also, NHTSA estimates that they don’t have any information for 60% of incidents, because they go unreported.
Aha, so now you actually did research, and found that all of the available data supports my claims, so you're attempting to undermine it. Nice try. "Estimates" vs. actual numbers isn't really a contest.
Come back when you have actual data - until then, you're just continuing to undermine your own point with your ridiculous fallacies and misdirections - because if you actually had a defensible claim, you'd be able to instantly pull out supporting evidence.
I'm not arguing about fatalities or relative percentages of contributing factors, nor am I arguing that alcohol/speeding/attention are not all also issues. They are, you're right.
The only thing I argued is that "lapses in human visual perception are responsible for some crashes", which is a fact.
* someone parking carefully, misjudges depth perception, bumps an object
* person driving at night, their eyes failed to perceive a poorly lit feature of the road/markings/obstacles
* person driving and suddenly blinded by bright object (the sun, bright lights at night)
* person pulling out in traffic who misinterprets their depth perception and therefore misjudges the speed of approaching traffic
* people can only focus their eyes at one distance at a time, and it takes time to focus at a different distance. It is neither unsafe nor unexpected for humans to check their instruments while driving -- but it can take the human eye hundreds of milliseconds to focus under normal circumstances -- If you look down, focus, look back up, and focus, as quick as you can at highway speeds, you will have travelled quite a long distance.
These type of failures can happen not as a result of poor decision making, but of poor perception.
Most of them.
We can lump together "inattention" and "idiocy" for the purposes of this conversation, because both could be massively alleviated by a good self-driving car without lidar.
If you look at the parallel comments, you'll see that the majority of accidents and fatalities indeed come from these two factors combined (two-thirds coming from distraction, speeding, and impaired driving), and that kube-system is having to resort to ridiculous fallacies to try to dispute the empirical data that is available.
However, there is also a lot of interaction between our perceptual system and cognition. Just for depth perception, we're doing a lot of temporal analysis. We track moving objects and infer distance from assumptions about scale and object permanence. We don't just repeatedly make depth maps from 2D imagery.
The brute-force approach is something like training visual language models (VLMs). E.g. you could train on lots of movies and be able to predict "what happens next" in the imaging world.
But, compared to LLMs, there is a bigger gap between the model and the application domain with VLMs. It may seem like LLMs are being applied to lots of domains, but most are just tiny variations on the same task of "writing what comes next", which is exactly what they were trained on. Unfortunately, driving is not "painting what comes next" in the same way as all these LLM writing hacks. There is still a big gap between that predictive layer, planning, and executing. Our giant corpus of movies does not really provide the ready-made training data to go after those bigger problems.
https://waymo.com/blog/2024/08/meet-the-6th-generation-waymo...
This company claims their LIDAR works conservatively at 250m, and up to 750m depending on reflectivity
https://www.cepton.com/driving-lidar/reading-lidar-specs-par...
We often greatly underestimate / undervalue the role of our ears relative to vision. As my film director friend says, 80% of the impact in a movie is in the sound
Sufficient to build something close to human performance. But self driving cars will be held to a much higher standard by society. A standard only achievable by having sensors like LiDAR.
Whether thats worth completely throwing away LiDAR is a different question, but your argument is just obviously false.
Deciding to crash faster, or "tell human to take over" really fast is NOT better.
Now you might say "use a depth model to estimate metric depth" and I think if you spend 5 minutes thinking about why a magic math box that pretends to recover real depth from a single 2D image is a very very sketchy proposition when you need it to be correct for emergency braking versus some TikTok bokeh filter you will see that also doesn't get you far.
In fact, that's why radio/music/podcasts thrive. Because we're bored when we drive. We have conversations, etc. We daydream.
As long as the skills relevant to actually driving are on parity with humans, the rest doesn't matter.
In fact, in a recent podcast, Musk mused that you actually may have a limit of how smart you want a vehicle model to be, because what if IT starts to get bored? What will it do? I found that to be an interesting (and amusing) thought exercise.
They also have several cameras all around providing constant 360° vision.
The reports that Tesla submits on Austin Robotaxis include several of them hitting fixed objects. This is the same behavior that has been reported on for prior versions of their software of Teslas not seeing objects, including for the incident for which they had a $250M verdict against them reaffirmed this past week. That this is occurring in an extensively mapped environment and with a safety driver on board leads me to the opposite conclusion that you have reached.
It's not only failing, it's causing false positives.
But I think costs were just part of the reason why Elon decided against Lidar. Apparently, they interfere with each other once the market saturates and you have many such cars on the same streets at the same time. Haven't heard yet how the Lidar proponents are planning to address that.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1mdl5zn/tw...
https://www.reddit.com/r/waymo/comments/1pggtpu/two_waymos_m...
They don’t focus on safety or effectiveness except to say that vision should be ‘sufficient’. Which is damning with faint praise imho.
If that link was to try and argue that the removal of sensors makes perfect sense i have to point out that anyone that reads that would likely have their negative viewpoint hardened. It was done to reduce cost (back when the sensors were 1000’s) and out of a ridiculous desire by Musk for minimalism. It’s the same desire that removed the indicator stalk i might add.
I assume Musk, et al are acting in best faith in trying to find the right compromises.
Karpathy’s main points: Extra sensors add cost to the system, and more importantly complexity. They make the software task harder, and increase the cost of all the data pipelines. They add risk and complexity to the supply chain and manufacturing. Elon Musk pushes a philosophy of “the best part is no part” which can be seen throughout the car in things like doing everything through the touchscreen. This is an expression of this philosophy. Vision is necessary to the task (which almost all agree on) and it should also be sufficient as well. If it is sufficient, the cost of extra sensors and tools outweighs their benefit. Sensors change as parts change or become available and unavailable. They must be maintained and software adapted to these changes. They must also be calibrated to make fusion work properly. Having a fleet gathering more data is more important than having more sensors. Having to process LIDAR and radar produces a lot of bloat in the code and data pipelines. He predicts other companies will also drop these sensors in time. Mapping the world and keeping it up to date is much too expensive. You won’t change the world with this limitation, you need to focus on vision which is the most important. The roads are designed to be interpreted with vision.
> One camera can't really produce depth/distance information, but two cameras sure can.
My father lost vision in 1 eye and 50% in other one something like 20 years ago. He struggles in parking but otherwise doing ok without lidar. Turns out motion vision is more accurate after 10-20 meters than stereoscopic vision.
But cost isnt the issue as much.