3 ms·
I've been on the fence about Tesla's approach (no Lidar) being the right way. But did you see the recent presentation at all? At this point I think it's clear
by audunw 8y ago
I've been on the fence about Tesla's approach (no Lidar) being the right way. But did you see the recent presentation at all?
At this point I think it's clear that they have a high chance of succeeding.
And I think the core argument is correct: If you don't have a neural net that can estimate depth from cameras as well as a human, you don't have a viable FSD system. The classifications that the system has to do to actually implement all the requirements of true FSD, is way harder than what's needed to make Lidar redundant with cameras and radar. Lidar is a shortcut to get a proof-of-concept running when your vision system is too weak to actually do full FSD.
> as much as it was an important PR point, it was never really viable.
Of course it's viable. It's just a question of time. It's pretty silly to think that sommehow, right this year, batteries will stop falling in price and Tesla will find no other ways to continue to reduce costs.
- semi-extrinsic 8y ago> And I think the core argument is correct: If you don't have a neural net that can estimate depth from cameras as well as a human, you don't have a viable FSD system. I agree that this statement is probably correct. But they're assuming the positive outcome here, and we have no proof that's correct. In fact, it may well turn out that the current approaches to autonomous driving using neural networks won't ever yield a viable FSD system. In fact I'd take that side of the bet, to be honest.