Remix.run Logo
estearum 2 hours ago

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.

seanmcdirmid an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Sensor fusion is also hard to get right, since you still need cameras you have to fuse the two information streams. Thats mainly a software problem and companies like Waymo have done it, but Tesla was having trouble with it earlier, and if you don’t do it right, your self driving system can be less reliable.

klabb3 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

And, less excusable, ignorant of how incredible human eyes are compared to small sensor cameras. In particular high DR in low light, with fast motion. Every photographer knows this.

venusenvy47 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

And also ignorant about how those two eyes have binocular vision, adjustable positions, and can look in multiple mirrors for full spatial awareness.

cobbzilla 7 minutes ago | parent [-]

There are good arguments but this isn’t one. Many humans (like me!) drive fine without binocular vision. And the cars have many cameras all around, with wide angle lenses that are watching everything all the time, when a human can only focus in one direction at a time.

cyanydeez 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There certainly is a pretty on going miscalculation regarding human intelligence, and consrquentially, empathy.

mytailorisrich 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

IMHO not using lidars sounds like a premature optimisation and a complication, with a level of hubris.

This is a difficult problem to solve and perhaps a pragmatic approach was/is to make your life as simple as possible to help get to a fully working solution, even if more expensive, then you can improve cost and optimise.

lazide an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Eh, I think ‘miscalculation’ might be giving too much credit about good intentions.

He wanted (needed?) to get on the hype train for self driving to pump up the stock price, knew that at the time there was zero chance they could sell it at the price point lidar required at the time - or even effective other sensors (like radar) - and sold it anyway at the price point that people would buy it at, even though it was not plausibly going to ever work at the level that was being promised.

There is a word for that. But I’m sure there are many lawyers that will say it was ‘mere fluffery’ or the like. And I’m sure he’ll get away with it, because more than enough people are complicit in the mess.

Miscalculation assumes there was a mistake somewhere, but near as I can tell, it is playing out as any reasonable person expected it too, given what was known at the time.

estearum an hour ago | parent [-]

I think Musk is really not as smart as he thinks he is and this specific thing was probably an earnest mistake. Lots of other fraudulent stuff going on though of course!

szundi 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]