That's not usually the argument. It's that LiDar has historically been working more reliably than tech that doesn't use it - and reliability is pretty important in that industry.
In any case I'm curious what gives you such blind faith that Tesla's vision-only tech will work out. There's a lot of really practical and frankly obvious reasons why it hasn't been working for a very long time and similarly lot's of videos (which are aggressively taken down by Tesla or can't even be posted due to shady customer NDA's) of their self-driving equipment getting dangerously close to murdering people. And of course, there are the _actual_ cases of Tesla's self-driving tech just you know, straight up murdering people.
You can shift blame to the humans not being attentive enough to take control when self-driving mistakes come up, but then you've lost the broader argument that self-driving Tesla's are "ready", even if you're right about the former.
Edit because fuck-you-HN-comment-limit-soft-ban:
(response to child comment below):
> Obviously, only vision and hearing are required for driving
Human vision is drastically better than even the most advanced computer vision systems we have or are likely to have any time soon - especially when there are realtime and hardware constraints. That's before you introduce the relatively (!) shoddy approximations that even SOTA vision models learn via SGD.
> I'm curious what gives you such blind faith that Tesla's vision-only tech will work out.
Obviously, only vision and hearing are required for driving. The question isn't "can it work," the question is "which approach will be economically viable on what time scale, and is there a winner-takes-all dynamic that excludes the approach that comes second."
throwaway314155|8 months ago
In any case I'm curious what gives you such blind faith that Tesla's vision-only tech will work out. There's a lot of really practical and frankly obvious reasons why it hasn't been working for a very long time and similarly lot's of videos (which are aggressively taken down by Tesla or can't even be posted due to shady customer NDA's) of their self-driving equipment getting dangerously close to murdering people. And of course, there are the _actual_ cases of Tesla's self-driving tech just you know, straight up murdering people.
You can shift blame to the humans not being attentive enough to take control when self-driving mistakes come up, but then you've lost the broader argument that self-driving Tesla's are "ready", even if you're right about the former.
Edit because fuck-you-HN-comment-limit-soft-ban:
(response to child comment below):
> Obviously, only vision and hearing are required for driving
Human vision is drastically better than even the most advanced computer vision systems we have or are likely to have any time soon - especially when there are realtime and hardware constraints. That's before you introduce the relatively (!) shoddy approximations that even SOTA vision models learn via SGD.
jdminhbg|8 months ago
Obviously, only vision and hearing are required for driving. The question isn't "can it work," the question is "which approach will be economically viable on what time scale, and is there a winner-takes-all dynamic that excludes the approach that comes second."