4 ms·

Well the question of "why didn't the lidar see the pedestrian?" was on everyones mind in the industry, so openly going out and declaring: "it surely must have

Well the question of "why didn't the lidar see the pedestrian?" was on everyones mind in the industry, so openly going out and declaring: "it surely must have seen it, the lidar's are fine" is an attempt at reassuring everyone who is now questioning if Lidars are not reliable enough. This is not exactly throwing Uber under the Bus as they themselves have an interest in being able to tell that story later on: "Our analysis concluded that our algorithms didn't put enough weight on the data coming from the lidar, which worked as intended and should have been weighted higher in these specific circumstances, we will adjust our efforts accordingly and will Donate $largeSum to CarsAgainstHumanity to bribe everyone into forgetting how bad we fucked up."

gowld 9y ago
Why is it OK for the LIDAR company to make a blanket statement of innocence without proof, but not OK for Uber to do the same?
- skybrian 9y ago
  Saying they are "baffled" isn't a blanket statement of innocence. It's saying they don't know what happened. There is a mystery here. The responsible thing to do is wait for the results of the investigation.
- lisper 9y ago
  But Velodyne has proof -- gobs of it -- that their product is "capable" of seeing the pedestrian in the dark. It's possible that this particular unit malfunctioned, but for this to be Velodyne's fault and not Uber's it would have had to malfunction in such a way that it gave the appearance of operating normally. That is extremely unlikely.
  - dmix 9y ago
    > She said that lidar has no problems seeing in the dark. “However, it is up to the rest of the system to interpret and use the data to make decisions. We do not know how the Uber system of decision-making works,” she added. > “In addition to Lidar, autonomous systems typically have several sensors, including camera and radar to make decisions,” she wrote. “We don’t know what sensors were on the Uber car that evening, if they were working, or how they were being used.” There's still a ton of variables here besides whether or not the Lidar detecting the pedestrian. Including the other sensors, how the software works, etc. All things out of the scope of Velodynes knowledge. Velodyne is not saying that they are certain the car should/could have stopped in time or avoided the crash. Their perspective is merely regarding the functionality of Lidar being able to detect the person. Not to mention we don't even know whether the Lidar malfunctioned yet either...
    - lisper 9y ago
      Go back and re-read the GP, which was trying to draw some sort of moral equivalence between Uber and Velodyne: "Why is it OK for the LIDAR company to make a blanket statement of innocence without proof, but not OK for Uber to do the same?" This is a disingenuous question. It assumes facts not in evidence, to use the legal aphorism. Velodyne did not "make a blanket statement of innocence without proof". It made a very narrow and defensible claim, namely, that its product, when working properly under the conditions at the time, should have been able to detect the pedestrian. It is obviously true that there are "a ton of other variables" but that is a red herring with respect to the original question.
      - dmix 9y ago
        > Velodyne did not "make a blanket statement of innocence without proof". I agree, if anything I supported this statement with my comment. The difference is that regardless of the narrowness of their claim, it will have a broader impact on how people judge Uber. Nor do we even know if the Lidar was functioning properly, which is an assumption Velodyne is making when they made their claim. We simply need more evidence before we can fully judge Uber. And before we can give Velodyne a complete pass in terms of the functionality of their Lidar.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- CamelCaseName 9y ago
  Uber is the poster child for lying and cheating. With an extraordinary reputation and history of scandals like theirs, extraordinary proof is required for their claims.
dmix 9y ago
It's entirely possible that Velodyne worded it far more softly, as to not directly attack Uber - as this article somewhat comes off as them doing. Who knows what other greater context the particular statements were in. After this past election I never trust these types of one-line quotes taken from a larger interview. The headline could easily have been: - Uber's Lidar manufacturer just as "baffled" why pedestrian not detected before crash

gowld 9y ago

Why is it OK for the LIDAR company to make a blanket statement of innocence without proof, but not OK for Uber to do the same?

skybrian 9y ago
Saying they are "baffled" isn't a blanket statement of innocence. It's saying they don't know what happened. There is a mystery here. The responsible thing to do is wait for the results of the investigation.
lisper 9y ago
But Velodyne has proof -- gobs of it -- that their product is "capable" of seeing the pedestrian in the dark. It's possible that this particular unit malfunctioned, but for this to be Velodyne's fault and not Uber's it would have had to malfunction in such a way that it gave the appearance of operating normally. That is extremely unlikely.
- dmix 9y ago
  > She said that lidar has no problems seeing in the dark. “However, it is up to the rest of the system to interpret and use the data to make decisions. We do not know how the Uber system of decision-making works,” she added. > “In addition to Lidar, autonomous systems typically have several sensors, including camera and radar to make decisions,” she wrote. “We don’t know what sensors were on the Uber car that evening, if they were working, or how they were being used.” There's still a ton of variables here besides whether or not the Lidar detecting the pedestrian. Including the other sensors, how the software works, etc. All things out of the scope of Velodynes knowledge. Velodyne is not saying that they are certain the car should/could have stopped in time or avoided the crash. Their perspective is merely regarding the functionality of Lidar being able to detect the person. Not to mention we don't even know whether the Lidar malfunctioned yet either...
  - lisper 9y ago
    Go back and re-read the GP, which was trying to draw some sort of moral equivalence between Uber and Velodyne: "Why is it OK for the LIDAR company to make a blanket statement of innocence without proof, but not OK for Uber to do the same?" This is a disingenuous question. It assumes facts not in evidence, to use the legal aphorism. Velodyne did not "make a blanket statement of innocence without proof". It made a very narrow and defensible claim, namely, that its product, when working properly under the conditions at the time, should have been able to detect the pedestrian. It is obviously true that there are "a ton of other variables" but that is a red herring with respect to the original question.
    - dmix 9y ago
      > Velodyne did not "make a blanket statement of innocence without proof". I agree, if anything I supported this statement with my comment. The difference is that regardless of the narrowness of their claim, it will have a broader impact on how people judge Uber. Nor do we even know if the Lidar was functioning properly, which is an assumption Velodyne is making when they made their claim. We simply need more evidence before we can fully judge Uber. And before we can give Velodyne a complete pass in terms of the functionality of their Lidar.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
CamelCaseName 9y ago
Uber is the poster child for lying and cheating. With an extraordinary reputation and history of scandals like theirs, extraordinary proof is required for their claims.

dmix 9y ago

It's entirely possible that Velodyne worded it far more softly, as to not directly attack Uber - as this article somewhat comes off as them doing. Who knows what other greater context the particular statements were in. After this past election I never trust these types of one-line quotes taken from a larger interview. The headline could easily have been: - Uber's Lidar manufacturer just as "baffled" why pedestrian not detected before crash