9 ms·

Lidar doesn't use visible spectrum light. They're usually infrared, so Musk's quote makes no sense. You're making a lot of strong assumptions to draw your conc

Lidar doesn't use visible spectrum light. They're usually infrared, so Musk's quote makes no sense. You're making a lot of strong assumptions to draw your conclusions: that commodity cameras and radar can compete on measurement accuracy with lidar systems, and that lidar costs won't decrease with additional investment (we've already seen costs decrease, by like a factor of 10x in less than a decade). The power questions also aren't cut and dry: if you need extra in-vehicle GPUs to support the radar+camera approach, you may well be using more power than a lidar based approach. There's also no real requirement that AVs operate in snow or dense fog. Those are only considerations in certain climates in certain seasons. You don't actually need the safety system to pass the safety tests (that don't currently exist) in worst case conditions if the vehicle works anyway. Why optimize for the worst case first? I'll respond clearly: We're multiple computer vision leaps forward away from what Elon needs for success. They're easily half a decade behind Lidar based systems. And people die as a consequence of putting those systems on the road.

BluSyn 7y ago
> The power questions also aren't cut and dry: if you need extra in-vehicle GPUs to support the radar+camera approach, you may well be using more power than a lidar based approach. All current lidar-based approaches I'm aware of also supplement with radar+cameras. LIDAR isn't sufficient in isolation. GPUs consume way too much power, there's no way you can cavalierly just add more of them as a scaling solution. > You don't actually need the safety system to pass the safety tests (that don't currently exist) in worst case conditions if the vehicle works anyway. Why optimize for the worst case first? Not even sure how to interpret such a statement. > I'll respond clearly: We're multiple computer vision leaps forward away from what Elon needs for success. They're easily half a decade behind Lidar based systems. And people die as a consequence of putting those systems on the road. Custom ASICs for ML that Tesla is building is fairly well-understood tech at this point. High-end smartphones have used similar tech for years now (though perhaps an apples-oranges comparison). Only criticism I would level against Tesla's current approach is their overly optimistic time estimates, and hand-waviness about the complexity of solving certain very complicated edge-cases. However their technological approach is quite sound.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  > All current lidar-based approaches I'm aware of also supplement with radar+cameras. LIDAR isn't sufficient in isolation. GPUs consume way too much power, there's no way you can cavalierly just add more of them as a scaling solution. Yes, but they don't need to get point-cloud level spacial data from a suite of cameras. That takes more compute power to do at 60fps accurately with cameras than with a lidar. > Not even sure how to interpret such a statement. Let me rephrase: You don't need the vehicles to work in worst case conditions at all, if economically they're still a success if you don't allow them to run in those conditions. If Waymo or Cruise who whomever has self driving taxis in 2020 deployed in temperate cities, and Tesla doesn't have L4 autonomy until 2024, at which point it also works in a blizzard, it doesn't matter if they're cheaper and more effective them. Tesla will have already lost. > Custom ASICs for ML that Tesla is building is fairly well-understood tech at this point. This is one small piece of the puzzle. You also need algorithms that Tesla doesn't appear to have, and (camera) hardware that Tesla claims to have but others seem to agree can't support what they want.
  - DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
    > If Waymo or Cruise who whomever has self driving taxis in 2020 deployed in temperate cities, and Tesla doesn't have L4 autonomy until 2024, at which point it also works in a blizzard, it doesn't matter if they're cheaper and more effective them. Tesla will have already lost. If those self-driving taxis are not available for retail purchase and cost their operators over 6-figure sums to add to their fleet - and Tesla have it working in their promised $35k Model 3, then Tesla will win in the long-term. Also, remember the car industry moves very, very slowly (no pun intended). The Model 3 has been out for over a year now and has barely captured a fraction of its possible market. Consider that people will buy/lease a car for individual use for 3-5 years before replacing it: someone buys a normal car in 2021 because they need one at the time, but will still buy Tesla’s FSD car when it comes out. The “autonomous taxis will replace individual car ownership” trope only applies to hyper-urbanised environments where parking-spaces are luxury lifestyle accessories - and where people are already well-services by public-transit infrastructure. Finally: people who try an autonomous (but unaffordable for exclusive individual use) taxi service in 2020 might be so impressed with the experience that they vow to buy the first available individually purchasable autonomous car - even if that happens until Tesla’s 2024 models come out - Tesla still wins. By analogy, consider that Tesla is probably the /hottest/ car brand in the world today - and they did it without any traditional advertising - and they got started over 10 years ago. Enough people influenced by reviews and YouTube videos of the Roadster and 2012 Model S translated that into real money being spent on Model 3 buys today. That’s an anticipation gap of at least to 7 years - that’s impressive. Can you imagine people waiting 7 years for an “affordable” version of a luxury product? Why weren’t any of the other manufacturers doing anything to meet this clear demand for physically attractive EVs with over-hyped autonomous capabilities? (Disclaimer: I own a Tesla Model X)
NicoJuicy 7y ago
> You don't actually need the safety system to pass the safety tests (that don't currently exist) in worst case conditions I do not agree, making the systems work in all conditions is the hard part of true automated driving. Also, worst conditions happen 1/50th of the year ( guess). So it's not that rare
- kd5bjo 7y ago
  Safety systems certainly need to work in all conditions, but “work” in this case may mean refusing to activate in conditions outside its design range. It’s fine for a self-driving system to refuse to drive in a blizzard; it’s not ok for it to try and then fail to drive in the blizzard.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Moderate rain is not an acceptable condition for cars to refuse to drive. Especially in the middle of long trips. This means self driving cars must also operate without LIDAR, though the safety advantage when it is operating can still be a net gain.
    - kd5bjo 7y ago
      > Moderate rain is not an acceptable condition for cars to refuse to drive. Especially in the middle of long trips. It is absolutely acceptable for a self-driving system to refuse to drive in any conditions it can’t handle, but it must also deactivate in a safe way when such conditions arise during operation (e.g. pull over to the side of the road if the driver hasn’t positively acknowledged resuming control). Commercial viability of any given system is a separate issue, but it’s pretty well accepted moral responsibility to not accept control of a vehicle if you’re unable to operate it safely, regardless of the consequences of that refusal(1). I see no reason to not hold consumer-facing self driving systems to the same standard. Otherwise, they require some specialized training for the operator to be able to recognize the situations in which they are safe to use. (1) Actual life-and-death situations change this a little, but future availability of rescue personnel and equipment generally weight the conclusion towards operating safely in those situations as well.
cm2187 7y ago
And safety isn’t limited to working in harsh conditions. Mistaking a picture on a billboard for a real object, or mistaking a truck color for the sky can also get you a crash by clear weather. The crutches analogy isn’t a very good one. If you ask a doctor, he will probably advise you to use crutches until you can stand firmly on your own two feet!
- dmix 7y ago
  Those don't sound like things Lidar would have a problem with. The color doesn't matter only whether the surface is reflective (basically anything not matte black). But otherwise objects are easy to detect and distance. The problem with weather is different as the individual droplets bounces the Lidar light before it hits the object.
  - cm2187 7y ago
    My point is rather that those are things CV would have problems with that Lidar disambiguate. And yes there are conditions where neither work well, and frankly where humans barely function either. Much of driving in heavy fog / heavy snowing is really a leap of faith at low speed.
navigatesol 7y ago
>They're usually infrared, so Musk's quote makes no sense. Many of Musk's statements don't hold up to the scrutiny of professionals or specialists.

BluSyn 7y ago

> The power questions also aren't cut and dry: if you need extra in-vehicle GPUs to support the radar+camera approach, you may well be using more power than a lidar based approach. All current lidar-based approaches I'm aware of also supplement with radar+cameras. LIDAR isn't sufficient in isolation. GPUs consume way too much power, there's no way you can cavalierly just add more of them as a scaling solution. > You don't actually need the safety system to pass the safety tests (that don't currently exist) in worst case conditions if the vehicle works anyway. Why optimize for the worst case first? Not even sure how to interpret such a statement. > I'll respond clearly: We're multiple computer vision leaps forward away from what Elon needs for success. They're easily half a decade behind Lidar based systems. And people die as a consequence of putting those systems on the road. Custom ASICs for ML that Tesla is building is fairly well-understood tech at this point. High-end smartphones have used similar tech for years now (though perhaps an apples-oranges comparison). Only criticism I would level against Tesla's current approach is their overly optimistic time estimates, and hand-waviness about the complexity of solving certain very complicated edge-cases. However their technological approach is quite sound.

joshuamorton 7y ago
> All current lidar-based approaches I'm aware of also supplement with radar+cameras. LIDAR isn't sufficient in isolation. GPUs consume way too much power, there's no way you can cavalierly just add more of them as a scaling solution. Yes, but they don't need to get point-cloud level spacial data from a suite of cameras. That takes more compute power to do at 60fps accurately with cameras than with a lidar. > Not even sure how to interpret such a statement. Let me rephrase: You don't need the vehicles to work in worst case conditions at all, if economically they're still a success if you don't allow them to run in those conditions. If Waymo or Cruise who whomever has self driving taxis in 2020 deployed in temperate cities, and Tesla doesn't have L4 autonomy until 2024, at which point it also works in a blizzard, it doesn't matter if they're cheaper and more effective them. Tesla will have already lost. > Custom ASICs for ML that Tesla is building is fairly well-understood tech at this point. This is one small piece of the puzzle. You also need algorithms that Tesla doesn't appear to have, and (camera) hardware that Tesla claims to have but others seem to agree can't support what they want.
- DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
  > If Waymo or Cruise who whomever has self driving taxis in 2020 deployed in temperate cities, and Tesla doesn't have L4 autonomy until 2024, at which point it also works in a blizzard, it doesn't matter if they're cheaper and more effective them. Tesla will have already lost. If those self-driving taxis are not available for retail purchase and cost their operators over 6-figure sums to add to their fleet - and Tesla have it working in their promised $35k Model 3, then Tesla will win in the long-term. Also, remember the car industry moves very, very slowly (no pun intended). The Model 3 has been out for over a year now and has barely captured a fraction of its possible market. Consider that people will buy/lease a car for individual use for 3-5 years before replacing it: someone buys a normal car in 2021 because they need one at the time, but will still buy Tesla’s FSD car when it comes out. The “autonomous taxis will replace individual car ownership” trope only applies to hyper-urbanised environments where parking-spaces are luxury lifestyle accessories - and where people are already well-services by public-transit infrastructure. Finally: people who try an autonomous (but unaffordable for exclusive individual use) taxi service in 2020 might be so impressed with the experience that they vow to buy the first available individually purchasable autonomous car - even if that happens until Tesla’s 2024 models come out - Tesla still wins. By analogy, consider that Tesla is probably the /hottest/ car brand in the world today - and they did it without any traditional advertising - and they got started over 10 years ago. Enough people influenced by reviews and YouTube videos of the Roadster and 2012 Model S translated that into real money being spent on Model 3 buys today. That’s an anticipation gap of at least to 7 years - that’s impressive. Can you imagine people waiting 7 years for an “affordable” version of a luxury product? Why weren’t any of the other manufacturers doing anything to meet this clear demand for physically attractive EVs with over-hyped autonomous capabilities? (Disclaimer: I own a Tesla Model X)

NicoJuicy 7y ago

> You don't actually need the safety system to pass the safety tests (that don't currently exist) in worst case conditions I do not agree, making the systems work in all conditions is the hard part of true automated driving. Also, worst conditions happen 1/50th of the year ( guess). So it's not that rare

kd5bjo 7y ago
Safety systems certainly need to work in all conditions, but “work” in this case may mean refusing to activate in conditions outside its design range. It’s fine for a self-driving system to refuse to drive in a blizzard; it’s not ok for it to try and then fail to drive in the blizzard.
- Retric 7y ago
  Moderate rain is not an acceptable condition for cars to refuse to drive. Especially in the middle of long trips. This means self driving cars must also operate without LIDAR, though the safety advantage when it is operating can still be a net gain.
  - kd5bjo 7y ago
    > Moderate rain is not an acceptable condition for cars to refuse to drive. Especially in the middle of long trips. It is absolutely acceptable for a self-driving system to refuse to drive in any conditions it can’t handle, but it must also deactivate in a safe way when such conditions arise during operation (e.g. pull over to the side of the road if the driver hasn’t positively acknowledged resuming control). Commercial viability of any given system is a separate issue, but it’s pretty well accepted moral responsibility to not accept control of a vehicle if you’re unable to operate it safely, regardless of the consequences of that refusal(1). I see no reason to not hold consumer-facing self driving systems to the same standard. Otherwise, they require some specialized training for the operator to be able to recognize the situations in which they are safe to use. (1) Actual life-and-death situations change this a little, but future availability of rescue personnel and equipment generally weight the conclusion towards operating safely in those situations as well.

cm2187 7y ago

And safety isn’t limited to working in harsh conditions. Mistaking a picture on a billboard for a real object, or mistaking a truck color for the sky can also get you a crash by clear weather. The crutches analogy isn’t a very good one. If you ask a doctor, he will probably advise you to use crutches until you can stand firmly on your own two feet!

dmix 7y ago
Those don't sound like things Lidar would have a problem with. The color doesn't matter only whether the surface is reflective (basically anything not matte black). But otherwise objects are easy to detect and distance. The problem with weather is different as the individual droplets bounces the Lidar light before it hits the object.
- cm2187 7y ago
  My point is rather that those are things CV would have problems with that Lidar disambiguate. And yes there are conditions where neither work well, and frankly where humans barely function either. Much of driving in heavy fog / heavy snowing is really a leap of faith at low speed.

navigatesol 7y ago

>They're usually infrared, so Musk's quote makes no sense. Many of Musk's statements don't hold up to the scrutiny of professionals or specialists.