Until a lawyer points out other cars see that. My car already has various sensors and in manual driving sounds alarms if there is a danger I seem not to have noticed. (There are false alarms - but most of the type I did notice and probably should have left more safety margin even though I wouldn't hit it)

also regulators gather srastics and if cars with something do better they will mandate it.

Very recent issue with Waymo https://dmnews.co.uk/waymo-robotaxi-spotted-unable-to-cross-.... This is 17 years after they bet the farm on LIDAR, with no signs its ever going to be cost effective or that it's better than multiple cameras, with millisecond reaction 360 degrees, that never gets tired, drunk, distracted, and also has other cheaper sensors and NN trained on Billions or real world data.

I don't think that's the reasoning.

The reasoning was simply that LIDAR was (and incorrectly predicted to always be) significantly more expensive than cameras, and hypothetically that should be fine because, well, humans drive with only two eyes.

Musk miscalculated on 1) cost reduction in LIDAR and 2) how incredible the human brain is compared to computers.

Having similar sensors certainly doesn't guarantee your accidents look the same, so I don't think your logic is even internally sound.

Why does this matter? You have to slow down in rain/snow/fog anyway, so only having cameras available doesn't hurt you all that much. But then in clear weather lidar can only help.

> lidars don't work well in rain/snow/fog.

Neither do cameras, or eyeballs.

Limited resources? Billions per year are being thrown at the base technology. We have the capital deployed to exhaust every path ten times over.

The Swiss cheese model would like to disagree.

This is silly. Cameras are cheap. Have both. Sensors that sense differently in different conditions is not an exotic new problem. The kalman filter has existed for about a billion years and machine learning filters do an even better job.

No, cameras cannot create reliable distance measurements in real-world conditions. Parallax is not a great way to measure distance for fast, unpredictably moving objects (such as cars on the road). And dirt or misalignment can significantly reduce accuracy compared to lab conditions.

Note that humans do not rely strictly on our eyes as cameras to measure distances. There is a huge amount of inference about the world based on our internal world models that goes into vision. For example, if you put is in a false-perspective or otherwise highly artifical environment, our visual acuity goes down significantly; conversely, people with a single eye (so no parallax-based measurement ability) still have quite decent depth perception compared to what you'd naively expect. Not to mention, our eyes are kept very clean, and maintain their alignment to a very high degree of precision.

There are tons of evidence showing that cameras are alone are not safe enough and even Tesla has realized that removing lidar to save cost was a mistake.

I have a suspicion here on HN. When criticizing big tech, especially Google and FB, at a certain time of the day a specific cohort comes online and downvotes. Suspiciously, that is a time when one could conclude, that now people in the US start working or come online. Either fanboys, employees or an organized group of users trying to silence big tech criticism.

I have no proof of course and it might be coincidence, or just difference of mindset between US citizens and Europe citizens. It happened a few times already and to me looks sus.

But if they actually read and not just ctrl+f <company name>, then of course not writing the company name, but hinting at it in an obvious way is no more helpful either.

Human/animal vision uses way more than parallax to judge distances and bearings - it uses a world model that evolved over millions of years to model the environment. That's why we can get excellent 3D images from a 2D screen, and also why our depth perception can be easily tricked with objects of unexpected size. Put a human or animal in an abstract environment with no shadows and no familiar objects, and you'll see that depth perception based solely on parallax is actually very bad.

Let me know when you have a camera package with human eye equivalency.

I don’t like the comparison between humans and humans. Humans don’t travel around at 100mph in packs of other humans. Why not use every sensor type at our disposal if it gives us more info to make decisions? Yes I understand it’s more complicated, but we figure stuff out.

Human eyes are much better than cameras at dealing with dynamic range. They’re also attached to a super-computer which has been continuously trained for many years to determine distances and classify objects.