3 ms·

Yes, for a human driver. An AI driver might see the lane stripes in the video and think "There is road in front of me, I can accelerate" - injuring its passenge

Yes, for a human driver. An AI driver might see the lane stripes in the video and think "There is road in front of me, I can accelerate" - injuring its passengers and endangering others.

galdosdi 9y ago
A good example of why relying on vision alone rather than also using sensors like LIDAR is silly. Selfdriving is already going to be a hugely valuable technology even if it requires an extra few thousand dollars per vehicle for hardware. Why get greedy?
- tyingq 9y ago
  >Why get greedy? I assume Tesla skipped LIDAR not really because of greed, but because the end consumer price of the car wouldn't have made sense. The other players aren't currently trying to sell cars with LIDAR to consumers. Is there an entity that has passed on LIDAR for different reasons?
  - galdosdi 9y ago
    Last I heard publicly, Waymo had gotten their LIDAR kit to under $10k. And still dropping. You're telling me that a new non-driverless car for say, $15k would outsell a (otherwise identical) driverless car for $25k? The value added by driverless is well above the cost of LIDAR. Achieving marketable driverlessness first is going to be way more important than cutting costs slightly. Everyone else who doesn't achieve it early is going to be hosed, and no amount of cost cutting will help. They'll just become suppliers or licensees for whoever achieves and patents it first, contractually ceding the lion's share of the profits
    - tyingq 9y ago
      No..I was referring to Tesla, since they are often called out for not using LIDAR. They are, however, selling direct to consumers...where that $10k matters a lot, right now. Waymo is likely either targeting operators (not end consumers) or at least waiting until LIDAR is much cheaper before they do.
      - galdosdi 9y ago
        Oh, I see. Yeah I agree it would have been silly of Tesla to add LIDAR to the cars currently on the market, just for the sake of better training data.

Yes, for a human driver. An AI driver might see the lane stripes in the video and think "There is road in front of me, I can accelerate" - injuring its passengers and endangering others.

galdosdi 9y ago

A good example of why relying on vision alone rather than also using sensors like LIDAR is silly. Selfdriving is already going to be a hugely valuable technology even if it requires an extra few thousand dollars per vehicle for hardware. Why get greedy?

tyingq 9y ago
>Why get greedy? I assume Tesla skipped LIDAR not really because of greed, but because the end consumer price of the car wouldn't have made sense. The other players aren't currently trying to sell cars with LIDAR to consumers. Is there an entity that has passed on LIDAR for different reasons?
- galdosdi 9y ago
  Last I heard publicly, Waymo had gotten their LIDAR kit to under $10k. And still dropping. You're telling me that a new non-driverless car for say, $15k would outsell a (otherwise identical) driverless car for $25k? The value added by driverless is well above the cost of LIDAR. Achieving marketable driverlessness first is going to be way more important than cutting costs slightly. Everyone else who doesn't achieve it early is going to be hosed, and no amount of cost cutting will help. They'll just become suppliers or licensees for whoever achieves and patents it first, contractually ceding the lion's share of the profits
  - tyingq 9y ago
    No..I was referring to Tesla, since they are often called out for not using LIDAR. They are, however, selling direct to consumers...where that $10k matters a lot, right now. Waymo is likely either targeting operators (not end consumers) or at least waiting until LIDAR is much cheaper before they do.
    - galdosdi 9y ago
      Oh, I see. Yeah I agree it would have been silly of Tesla to add LIDAR to the cars currently on the market, just for the sake of better training data.