6 ms·

Not using lidar for self driving cars is a giant premature optimization (just like premature automation, etc)

by iabacu 8y ago

sliken 8y ago
Maybe, but where are all the lidar cars that drive significantly better than a Tesla?
- raihansaputra 8y ago
  Well, all of them are still in extensive testing with bug reports from small-event disengagement, not in customer bought cars involved in fatal crashes.
  - sliken 8y ago
    Except for the lidar equipped uber that killed a woman you mean? Sure, watching a Disney movie while a Telsa drives is stupid and got someone killed. Seems like a pretty poor proof that lidar is superior. Not to mention Tesla hardware and software has some pretty far since then.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      The lidar detected the woman. However, the car was programmed not to brake... The problem was the software, not the hardware.
      - gnulinux 8y ago
        How's this a good argument? The entire point in favor of lidar is that the hardware gives more data to software which can in turn be used to make decisions. There is no hardware/software distinction here. Nobody claims that lidar isn't capable of detecting objects. (Note that this is not a comment against lidar, I agree with you but I don't think your argument is sufficient)
        gamblor956 8y ago
        The parent comment was opining that Uber's LIDAR based system was systemically inferior to Tesla's non-LIDAR based system. As this is a comment thread about LIDAR systems, the clear implication was that the LIDAR aspect failed. My point was that the software failed, not the hardware, and I am making a hardware/software distinction. LIDAR > camera-only systems. LIDAR provides positional data for objects before objection recognition/detection. Camera-only systems need to process an image and do object-detection before they can even figure out where objects are, meaning that they will always be slower than LIDAR for at least the amount of time it takes for that particular system to do image processing and object detection.
        gnulinux 8y ago
        My point is that you're missing the point. This debate isn't about whether lidar works or not. Whether lidars are capable of capturing images is not the question we're trying to answer. The question is whether applying lidar to self-driving technology is worth the tradeoffs. Your last paragraph is a point about software not hardware. You're suggesting by using lidar, you give software more information than just using camera, which causes software to be faster. This is a valid point. But you cannot say, using lidar in a self-driving car is a good idea because it successfully captured the image even though software failed to process that image to make the correct decision. Well, if lidar doesn't help software (and it does) it'd just be useless crap. If Uber engineers don't know how to process lidar data, they really shouldn't put lidar in their cars... It's not about hardware or software, it's about the system as a whole.
        raihansaputra 8y ago
        But what is the trade off by using lidar? Higher prices that will be absorbed by the fleet owners? For a significant amount of crash-avoidance data? Lidar have a wider range of operation (especially at night), and software will catch up to squeeze every single data it can from both cameras and lidar. I don't understand this obsession of limiting bleeding edge applications to use a select few of sensors (as been echoed in this thread a few times).
      - ec109685 8y ago
        The non-lidar system detected the woman too.
    - raihansaputra 8y ago
      Got someone killed? There has been multiple crashes caused by Tesla's system not registering an object that would have been registered by a Lidar.
      - sliken 8y ago
        Sure, but there's also cases of Tesla's acting to save lives in cases where Lidar wouldn't have helped. For instance reacting to brake lights. Or slowing when a car on front of another car, not visible, had an accident. Sure Lidar + camera would be ideal, but if picking one or another it's far from clear where would be safer. Lidar has 3D of course, but a MUCH lower data rate, and of course no color.
  - raihansaputra 8y ago
    I'm interested in what anybody has to say something about this. Tesla has been reckless in their release and marketing of their 'Autopilot' software that lead to fatal crashes. Other companies (even Uber) are more responsible that that. The Uber fatal accident happened in a test vehicle, not customer bought cars. I'm not saying what Tesla has done in the self-driving arena trivial (it is not). But that does not mean their conduct is responsible.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  Tesla cars, with the sensor packages they currently have, do not have a path forward to Level 5, despite the marketing claims of Tesla. Claiming that their cars have all the hardware required for Level 5 is a flagrant lie, which they can get away with for now because they've given themselves plenty of outs to avoid ever having to deliver Level 5 capabilities (when they fail they can blame inadequate software or an unsuitable regulatory environment.) A word on that software: As it currently stands, they are delivering software that enables Level 2 capabilities. This is sometimes called "hands on", as in your hands should remain on the steering wheel and your eyes on the road, ready to take control in an instant. According to Tesla, drivers are to keep their hands on the wheel and pay attention to the road; if the driver fails to do so then they are at fault for any accident. However Elon Musk contradicts this company policy and has promoted the system as hands off on national television. Why would he do something so irresponsible? Because misrepresenting the hardware and software capabilities of his cars helps him sell cars. He knows the hype for self driving cars is at a fever pitch, and stretching the truth helps him profit from that hype. https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-breaks-tesla-autopilot-rule-2018-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-breaks-tesla-autop...
  - ec109685 8y ago
    Why can't the hardware deliver Level 5? The one area that he is saying they'll upgrade is their inference engine – is that what you're referring to?
  - leesec 8y ago
    Well no one knows how to get to level 5 since it doesn't exist yet. But there doesn't seem to be any theoretical reason why maps+vision+radar can't scale to level 5.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      Their radar doesn't have the angular resolution to do anything other than adaptive cruise control, and while they boast 360˚ camera coverage, whatever stereoscopic data they are getting from those cameras is evidently insufficient to detect a large firetruck parked in the middle of the street. Now consider MobilEye, a subsidiary of Intel and a major player in the field of camera/radar driver assist technology. Tesla was using MobilEye tech, until MobilEye terminated that relationship because they believed Tesla was being irresponsible with how far they were pushing MobilEye's tech. MobilEye had a financial incentive to see Tesla succeed with a camera/radar only solution, and continues to have a financial incentive to downplay the necessity of LIDAR. But do they? No. Instead you've got MobilEye's CEO Amnon Shashua talking about the virtues of a combined LIDAR/radar and camera/radar solution, while trash talking Elon Musk for being irresponsible. When you consider who is saying what and what their financial incentives are, it becomes clear that Amnon Shashua is an ethical person and Elon is a car salesman who is making technically unfalsifiable claims about the capabilities of the hardware in Tesla cars to profit from automation hype.
- deepnotderp 8y ago
  Waymo, Cruise, Zoox, Apple, a LOT of teams really, Tesla is only really good at marketing SDCs, what they have is really little more than an ADAS.
  - leesec 8y ago
    But you don't know this for sure since you can't use any of these cars, right? The point being Tesla has actually shipped a product that's pretty good, and therefore, is currently the best in the market. Sure maybe Waymo's system is better but since I can't use a Waymo I don't think we should be counting it just yet.
    - Symmetry 8y ago
      You can get a ride with Waymo if you head down to Phoenix.
      - leesec 8y ago
        If you're on a list[1]. "Waymo One is only available to a small group of consumers who also participated in the early rider program." [1] https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/281776-waymo-launches-consumer-self-driving-car-service-in-arizona https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/281776-waymo-launches-co...
- pretendscholar 8y ago
  What makes you think that Tesla is the best implementation of a self-driving car today?
  - sliken 8y ago
    I've not tried them all, in fact I've only driven a Tesla on autopilot for a few 100 miles. However with 1 billion miles driven on autopilot and (IMO) relatively few problems it seems like it must be pretty good. I hear about accidents involving uber, waymo, and similar just about as often as Tesla, despite Tesla shipping 5000 cars a week or more. Granted only a faction of those are likely to have the $5,000 enhanced autopilot, still radically more miles driven than anyone else.

Not using lidar for self driving cars is a giant premature optimization (just like premature automation, etc)

by iabacu 8y ago

Not using lidar for self driving cars is a giant premature optimization (just like premature automation, etc)

sliken 8y ago

Maybe, but where are all the lidar cars that drive significantly better than a Tesla?

raihansaputra 8y ago
Well, all of them are still in extensive testing with bug reports from small-event disengagement, not in customer bought cars involved in fatal crashes.
- sliken 8y ago
  Except for the lidar equipped uber that killed a woman you mean? Sure, watching a Disney movie while a Telsa drives is stupid and got someone killed. Seems like a pretty poor proof that lidar is superior. Not to mention Tesla hardware and software has some pretty far since then.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    The lidar detected the woman. However, the car was programmed not to brake... The problem was the software, not the hardware.
    - gnulinux 8y ago
      How's this a good argument? The entire point in favor of lidar is that the hardware gives more data to software which can in turn be used to make decisions. There is no hardware/software distinction here. Nobody claims that lidar isn't capable of detecting objects. (Note that this is not a comment against lidar, I agree with you but I don't think your argument is sufficient)
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        The parent comment was opining that Uber's LIDAR based system was systemically inferior to Tesla's non-LIDAR based system. As this is a comment thread about LIDAR systems, the clear implication was that the LIDAR aspect failed. My point was that the software failed, not the hardware, and I am making a hardware/software distinction. LIDAR > camera-only systems. LIDAR provides positional data for objects before objection recognition/detection. Camera-only systems need to process an image and do object-detection before they can even figure out where objects are, meaning that they will always be slower than LIDAR for at least the amount of time it takes for that particular system to do image processing and object detection.
        gnulinux 8y ago
        My point is that you're missing the point. This debate isn't about whether lidar works or not. Whether lidars are capable of capturing images is not the question we're trying to answer. The question is whether applying lidar to self-driving technology is worth the tradeoffs. Your last paragraph is a point about software not hardware. You're suggesting by using lidar, you give software more information than just using camera, which causes software to be faster. This is a valid point. But you cannot say, using lidar in a self-driving car is a good idea because it successfully captured the image even though software failed to process that image to make the correct decision. Well, if lidar doesn't help software (and it does) it'd just be useless crap. If Uber engineers don't know how to process lidar data, they really shouldn't put lidar in their cars... It's not about hardware or software, it's about the system as a whole.
        raihansaputra 8y ago
        But what is the trade off by using lidar? Higher prices that will be absorbed by the fleet owners? For a significant amount of crash-avoidance data? Lidar have a wider range of operation (especially at night), and software will catch up to squeeze every single data it can from both cameras and lidar. I don't understand this obsession of limiting bleeding edge applications to use a select few of sensors (as been echoed in this thread a few times).
    - ec109685 8y ago
      The non-lidar system detected the woman too.
  - raihansaputra 8y ago
    Got someone killed? There has been multiple crashes caused by Tesla's system not registering an object that would have been registered by a Lidar.
    - sliken 8y ago
      Sure, but there's also cases of Tesla's acting to save lives in cases where Lidar wouldn't have helped. For instance reacting to brake lights. Or slowing when a car on front of another car, not visible, had an accident. Sure Lidar + camera would be ideal, but if picking one or another it's far from clear where would be safer. Lidar has 3D of course, but a MUCH lower data rate, and of course no color.
- raihansaputra 8y ago
  I'm interested in what anybody has to say something about this. Tesla has been reckless in their release and marketing of their 'Autopilot' software that lead to fatal crashes. Other companies (even Uber) are more responsible that that. The Uber fatal accident happened in a test vehicle, not customer bought cars. I'm not saying what Tesla has done in the self-driving arena trivial (it is not). But that does not mean their conduct is responsible.
darkpuma 8y ago
Tesla cars, with the sensor packages they currently have, do not have a path forward to Level 5, despite the marketing claims of Tesla. Claiming that their cars have all the hardware required for Level 5 is a flagrant lie, which they can get away with for now because they've given themselves plenty of outs to avoid ever having to deliver Level 5 capabilities (when they fail they can blame inadequate software or an unsuitable regulatory environment.) A word on that software: As it currently stands, they are delivering software that enables Level 2 capabilities. This is sometimes called "hands on", as in your hands should remain on the steering wheel and your eyes on the road, ready to take control in an instant. According to Tesla, drivers are to keep their hands on the wheel and pay attention to the road; if the driver fails to do so then they are at fault for any accident. However Elon Musk contradicts this company policy and has promoted the system as hands off on national television. Why would he do something so irresponsible? Because misrepresenting the hardware and software capabilities of his cars helps him sell cars. He knows the hype for self driving cars is at a fever pitch, and stretching the truth helps him profit from that hype. https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-breaks-tesla-autopilot-rule-2018-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-breaks-tesla-autop...
- ec109685 8y ago
  Why can't the hardware deliver Level 5? The one area that he is saying they'll upgrade is their inference engine – is that what you're referring to?
- leesec 8y ago
  Well no one knows how to get to level 5 since it doesn't exist yet. But there doesn't seem to be any theoretical reason why maps+vision+radar can't scale to level 5.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Their radar doesn't have the angular resolution to do anything other than adaptive cruise control, and while they boast 360˚ camera coverage, whatever stereoscopic data they are getting from those cameras is evidently insufficient to detect a large firetruck parked in the middle of the street. Now consider MobilEye, a subsidiary of Intel and a major player in the field of camera/radar driver assist technology. Tesla was using MobilEye tech, until MobilEye terminated that relationship because they believed Tesla was being irresponsible with how far they were pushing MobilEye's tech. MobilEye had a financial incentive to see Tesla succeed with a camera/radar only solution, and continues to have a financial incentive to downplay the necessity of LIDAR. But do they? No. Instead you've got MobilEye's CEO Amnon Shashua talking about the virtues of a combined LIDAR/radar and camera/radar solution, while trash talking Elon Musk for being irresponsible. When you consider who is saying what and what their financial incentives are, it becomes clear that Amnon Shashua is an ethical person and Elon is a car salesman who is making technically unfalsifiable claims about the capabilities of the hardware in Tesla cars to profit from automation hype.
deepnotderp 8y ago
Waymo, Cruise, Zoox, Apple, a LOT of teams really, Tesla is only really good at marketing SDCs, what they have is really little more than an ADAS.
- leesec 8y ago
  But you don't know this for sure since you can't use any of these cars, right? The point being Tesla has actually shipped a product that's pretty good, and therefore, is currently the best in the market. Sure maybe Waymo's system is better but since I can't use a Waymo I don't think we should be counting it just yet.
  - Symmetry 8y ago
    You can get a ride with Waymo if you head down to Phoenix.
    - leesec 8y ago
      If you're on a list[1]. "Waymo One is only available to a small group of consumers who also participated in the early rider program." [1] https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/281776-waymo-launches-consumer-self-driving-car-service-in-arizona https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/281776-waymo-launches-co...
pretendscholar 8y ago
What makes you think that Tesla is the best implementation of a self-driving car today?
- sliken 8y ago
  I've not tried them all, in fact I've only driven a Tesla on autopilot for a few 100 miles. However with 1 billion miles driven on autopilot and (IMO) relatively few problems it seems like it must be pretty good. I hear about accidents involving uber, waymo, and similar just about as often as Tesla, despite Tesla shipping 5000 cars a week or more. Granted only a faction of those are likely to have the $5,000 enhanced autopilot, still radically more miles driven than anyone else.