I'm saying that when you ask people not getting a paycheck from Tesla, they say that LIDAR is required. Very notably including Mobileye, who severed their connection with Tesla over this disagreement. Mobileye is particularly notable since they invested heavily into camera-only solutions; Mobileye has a strong financial incentive to dismiss LIDAR, yet they don't.
It's obvious why Tesla doesn't either put LIDAR in all their cars or remove the self driving hardware claims from their advertising; Elon wants to have his cake and eat it too.
More from mobileye:
> Level 3 – Autonomous Under Certain Circumstances [...] Mobileye expects this additional redundancy to be covered by additional sensors like radar and lidar (for shape and object detection) and by Mobileye’s REM™ localization map for identification of safe drivable paths and knowledge of intersections and other traffic signage or instructions.
Harsher words than mine, from GM’s director of autonomous vehicle integration Scott Miller:
>“The level of technology and knowing what it takes to do the mission, to say you can be a full Level 5 with just cameras and radars is not physically possible,” said Miller. He went on to add that Musk is “full of crap.”
An article about the angular resolution limitations of radar (overcoming this is exactly what LIDAR is for):
>Raj Rajkumar, who researches autonomous driving at Carnegie Mellon University, thinks those assumptions concern one of Tesla's key sensors. “The radars they use are apparently meant for detecting moving objects (as typically used in adaptive cruise control systems), and seem to be not very good in detecting stationary objects," he says.
>That's not nearly as crazy as it may seem. Radar knows the speed of any object it sees, and is also simple, cheap, robust, and easy to build into a front bumper. But it also detects lots of things a car rolling down the highway needn't worry about, like overhead highway signs, loose hubcaps, or speed limit signs. So engineers make a choice, telling the car to ignore these things and keep its eyes on the other cars on the road: They program the system to focus on the stuff that's moving.
If you search around for this, you'll find there are A LOT of people calling BS on Tesla's claims that cameras and radar are adequate sensors for Level 5 automation. Tesla's website hints at none of this. The only caveats I see from them are concerning software and regulation:
>Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval. Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year.
Required for what, the self driving cars that don't exist yet? Radar and computer vision is simply a separate approach, not a wrong one. Tesla is as much an expert in the field as anyone, given that, you know, they have the best self driving commercial product by far.
>"Required for what, the self driving cars that don't exist yet?"
Required for Level 5 automation. Tesla claims to be selling the required hardware, waiting only on the software and legislation allowing it. All other players in this field are focusing on a combination of cameras, radar and LIDAR.
Since LIDAR is expensive and the self-driving hype is real, Tesla have a strong short term financial incentive to forgo the former while claiming to sell the later. Combine that with virtually every other expert in the field saying they're full of BS, and I think the picture becomes crystal clear. Elon covers for himself by promoting conspiracy theories about grand industry-wide plots to keep an underdog down, and that has worked very well for him so far. But like most conspiracy theories, this is one you should think critically about.
I work for an automotive tech company and have installed an L2 self driving system into my friends Camry, I don't think you've thought critically about this. LIDAR is currently a prohibitively expensive technology that provides a point map of the surrounding area. The LIDAR that Waymo uses is nearly as expensive as the car itself. This same point map can be done with computer vision/cameras, and good software. There are many other "experts" that think this is equally viable e.g. George Hotz at Comma AI or Anthony Levandowski at Pronto.
I am not opposed to LIDAR. I just think it is unnecessary and that computer vision is likely to get good enough before LIDAR gets cheap enough.
The last time I looked into it (which was admittedly a few months ago) Comma.ai was by their own admission a Level 2 system, and a somewhat sketchy one at that. While it's obviously really cool, it's a long way off from Level 5.
LIDAR currently being very expensive (and a bit bulky) is obviously the reason Tesla hasn't put LIDAR in their cars. I don't really fault them for that, I fault them for their deceptive advertising. The LIDAR industry has not yet progressed to the point where it makes sense to bring a car to market with hardware ready for Level 5 automation, so Tesla should stop claiming they've done so.
Assuming the current Level 5 automation hype doesn't fizzle then smoulder for decades like the AI craze of the 60s, then it's success will coincide with rapid advances in size and price of LIDAR.
I'm curious, because I honestly dont know, how does LIDAR perform in suboptimal environments such as heavy fog , a Midwest downpour or a blizzard? So far, everything I've read has these cars testing in sunny day (no pun intended) scenarios, with the worst environmental threat being night-time.
Every system known to man, including man, struggles in those sort of conditions.
But this is an important factor to consider when evaluating safety statistics. Humans operate cars in all sort of adverse conditions and human accident rates include accidents in those kind of conditions. Accident rates for autonomous systems that refuse to attempt operation under anything less than ideal conditions won't be directly comparable to human accident rates... but expect this to be glossed over by automotive marketing departments who will eagerly compare apples to oranges as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
This is basically my concern with the hype over automated driving. I live in the upper Midwest. 6 months or more of the year have unideal driving conditions. A purely autonomous vehicle is worthless to me if it can't get me to where I need to go half the time.
I'm saying that when you ask people not getting a paycheck from Tesla, they say that LIDAR is required. Very notably including Mobileye, who severed their connection with Tesla over this disagreement. Mobileye is particularly notable since they invested heavily into camera-only solutions; Mobileye has a strong financial incentive to dismiss LIDAR, yet they don't.
It's obvious why Tesla doesn't either put LIDAR in all their cars or remove the self driving hardware claims from their advertising; Elon wants to have his cake and eat it too.
More from mobileye:
> Level 3 – Autonomous Under Certain Circumstances [...] Mobileye expects this additional redundancy to be covered by additional sensors like radar and lidar (for shape and object detection) and by Mobileye’s REM™ localization map for identification of safe drivable paths and knowledge of intersections and other traffic signage or instructions.
https://www.mobileye.com/future-of-mobility/history-autonomo...
Harsher words than mine, from GM’s director of autonomous vehicle integration Scott Miller:
>“The level of technology and knowing what it takes to do the mission, to say you can be a full Level 5 with just cameras and radars is not physically possible,” said Miller. He went on to add that Musk is “full of crap.”
https://futurism.com/gm-expert-calls-elon-musk-full-of-crap-...
An article about the angular resolution limitations of radar (overcoming this is exactly what LIDAR is for):
>Raj Rajkumar, who researches autonomous driving at Carnegie Mellon University, thinks those assumptions concern one of Tesla's key sensors. “The radars they use are apparently meant for detecting moving objects (as typically used in adaptive cruise control systems), and seem to be not very good in detecting stationary objects," he says.
>That's not nearly as crazy as it may seem. Radar knows the speed of any object it sees, and is also simple, cheap, robust, and easy to build into a front bumper. But it also detects lots of things a car rolling down the highway needn't worry about, like overhead highway signs, loose hubcaps, or speed limit signs. So engineers make a choice, telling the car to ignore these things and keep its eyes on the other cars on the road: They program the system to focus on the stuff that's moving.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/tesla-fire-truck-crash-autop...
If you search around for this, you'll find there are A LOT of people calling BS on Tesla's claims that cameras and radar are adequate sensors for Level 5 automation. Tesla's website hints at none of this. The only caveats I see from them are concerning software and regulation:
>Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval. Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year.