3 ms·
> I do wonder if, deep down, Tesla's decision is rooted in aesthetics. I've always read it as Tesla trying to do a paradigm leap. It seems everyone in self-dri
by madamelic 5y ago
> I do wonder if, deep down, Tesla's decision is rooted in aesthetics.
I've always read it as Tesla trying to do a paradigm leap. It seems everyone in self-driving knows you can do it pretty well with a huge variety of sensors, but what if you got extremely good at only camera-based then added in the new sensors.
Basically, if you can establish that the very worst case works, you can add in more sensors to go beyond that and have the cars become superhuman rather than having to depend on all sensors to consistently be working to have a safe vehicle.
- fieldcny 5y agoJust to state the obvious, that assumes other sensors are net additive. I’m not sure how valid an assumption that is, they could wind up just adding complexity and creating noise.
- Dylan16807 5y agoYou don't have to remove sensors to write code that way. And what if the best answer is being extremely good at lidar-only and then adding in cameras on top.
- freshpots 5y agoThey should still have radar to see through fog/rain but they abandoned it, as Green said: https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1496575861822267403 https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1496575861822267403 now is a terrible time to buy a new Tesla car. But I do realize not everybody can wait it out
- benatkin 5y ago> You don't have to remove sensors to write code that way. I think that's debatable. There are plenty of stories of trying to force an outcome of a big software project and things not going as expected. https://medium.com/@herbcaudill/lessons-from-6-software-rewrite-stories-635e4c8f7c22 https://medium.com/@herbcaudill/lessons-from-6-software-rewr...