3 ms·

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.

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.