4 ms·

The counter argument is lidar isn’t strictly necessary (case in point humans use vision, and roads are designed for visual drivers). Furthermore, there is poten

The counter argument is lidar isn’t strictly necessary (case in point humans use vision, and roads are designed for visual drivers). Furthermore, there is potential added complexity in fusing lidar and video data. When lidar says the path is blocked and video says it is not, you essentially have to either trust lidar and stop unnecessarily or just ignore lidar and go anyway (and then what was the point of the lidar?). Having to make a decision like this is a form of complexity and addressing that complexity potentially takes resources away from iterating on the vision part of the stack.

swsieber 4y ago
> When lidar says the path is blocked and video says it is not, you essentially have to either trust lidar and stop unnecessarily or just ignore lidar and go anyway (and then what was the point of the lidar?). If it's actually blocked then decision becomes stop and prevent harm or go forward and hurt someone. I don't think it's a very good counter argument. Edit: without meaningful data as to which is more meaningful I'd lean towards LIDAR being safer because there's less info (depth) to infer, and to me color seems less important than depth, barring stuff like signs and lights. Which shouldn't be hard to correlate between the two. But without more meaningful data this comes off as a "you should x people people did x anciently and it seems like that worked"