> Waymo and many others in the industry use high-definition maps. You have to first drive some car that pre-maps the environment, you have to have lidar with ce

> Waymo and many others in the industry use high-definition maps. You have to first drive some car that pre-maps the environment, you have to have lidar with centimeter-level accuracy, and you are on rails. You know exactly how you are going to turn in an intersection, you know exactly which traffic lights are relevant to you, you where they are positioned and everything. We do not make these assumptions. For us, every single intersection we come up to, we see it for the first time. Everything has to be sold — just like what a human would do in the same situation. This seems like the right approach to me given the accuracy, or lack there of, of LIDAR. However, I do not like Tesla's approach to test/experiment with Autopilot in production ie deploying it in real world environments and expecting that humans will responsibly use the technology. It is analogous to fixing a software design flaw by "convention" where you expect your clients to understand the convention when they are using your code as opposed to fixing the design flaw in software itself. Unlike software crashes on a desktop, a bug/irresponsible use of Autopilot is literally the difference between life and death. > Tesla has the giant advantage of collecting a ton of data from hundreds of thousands of cars, but he describes finding the right data as finding a needle in a haystack. > When Tesla owners drive around and see a stop sign blocked by foliage, they make a voice command that sends the data to Tesla and you gather points As long as the data is anonymized, this doesn't seem like an issue. Given how many of Tesla's vehicles have been hacked into, I wouldn't feel comfortable handing over that much data to Tesla or any other company.