[spot5010]

I've never understood the argument against lidars (except cost, but even that you can argue can come down).

If a sensor provides additional data, why not use it? Sure, humans can drive withot lidars, but why limit the AI to using human-like sensors?

Why even call it a crutch? IMO It's an advantage over human sensors.

[bayindirh]

> Sure, humans can drive without LIDARs...

That's because our stereoscopic vision has infinitely more dynamic range, focusing speed and processing power w.r.t. a computer vision system. Periphery vision is very good at detecting movement, and central view can process tremendous amount of visual data without even trying.

Even a state of the art professional action camera system can't rival our eyes in any of these categories. LIDARs and RADARs are useful and shall be present in any car.

This is the top reason I'm not considering a Tesla. Brain dead insistence on cameras with small sensors only.

[iknowstuff]

their cams have better dynamic range than your eyes, given they can just run multiexposure and u gotta squint for sunlight. focal point is infinite for driving.

You’re not considering them even though they have the best adas on the market lmao suit yourself

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2V5Oqg15VpQ

[IgorPartola]

I don’t work in this field so take the grain of salt first.

Quality of additional data matters. How often does a particular sensor give you false positives and false negatives? What do you do when sensor A contradicts sensor B?

“3.6 roentgen, not great, not terrible.”

[giveita]

You can say that about human hearing and balance. What if they conflict with visual? We are good at figuring it out.