BMW tests next-gen LiDAR to beat Tesla to Level 3 self-driving cars::Tesla’s autonomous vehicle tech has been perennially stuck at Level 2 self-driving, as BMW and other rivals try to leapfrog to Level 3.

  • tibi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    118
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Tesla’s decision to only use cameras and no lidar will bite them in the ass.

      • riodoro1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This. That cocksucker has such ~a tiny dick~ fragile ego he makes huge decisions without any expertise simply because he says so. Thats how he built the whole “genius” thing around him. Reality of it is that he is an annoying dumbass who thinks he knows it all and anyone in the same room with more than one brain cell is immediately annoyed with him. But he has a lot of money so i guess LeTtEr X cOoL

        • NielsBohron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think you need to use two tildes on each side if you want it show up as a strike through like this

           ~~like this~~
          
    • MacAttak8@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Came here to say this. Couldn’t be more on point. Using both cameras and LiDAR in tandem will be necessary for true self driving vehicles.

      • HERRAX@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve been working with pretty much top tier vision tech, and it’s still so far off from being viable enough. It’s insane how well it works, but to use it in a dynamic environment driving around on roads… Pure madness to believe it will be enough with only cameras in like the next 10-15 years at least (imo).

        I bought a Tesla despite my hatred for Musk because it was the only reasonable alternative when it came to electric cars where I live at the time, and got one of the old ones with lidar and cameras. I have this super weak shimmer of hope that they will go back to using both again, since the warning systems and their “autopilot” feel way shittier than it used to since they’ve allegedly patched away the lidar.

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        fortunately LIDAR unit costs are going down, so multiple units, fusing their data with regular camera arrays should resolve a very good view, and be good at error-correcting for each other’s shortcomings.

    • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Currently they seem to be leading the race though even though the competition is using radar and lidar

      Edit: Am I wrong?

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If buy leading the race you mean the only company to have an actual product available for purchase then yeah.

        But the reason they were able to get to market so quickly is because they don’t actually have any concerns about it being functional or safe. That’s a real boon to them because it helps them move quickly ahead of the competition that do care about those things.

        Of course one good argue that an unsafe self-driving system is in fact not a self-driving system and therefore they are not the first to market.

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The average consumer would define self driving as “if my car crashes, my car should be sued”. Is that how it works with a tesla crash, who pays for that?

            • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Then what’s the point in it?

              What’s the point in a self-driving system that has been babysat in order to ensure it doesn’t murder you, random pedestrians and other road users. If I want a car that is unsafe if I take my hands off the wheel I can get a regular car, it already does that.

              Tesla themselves call it FSD, Full Self Driving. That is at best false advertising and at worst reckless endangerment. It isn’t fully capable, and it requires the driver’s attention so it isn’t self-driving. Literally every part of its name is wrong.

        • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, I mean leading the race as in having the most capable sefl driving system in existence which I believe is the case.

          I don’t know what you’re basing the claim on that it’s not functional and safe.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I am basing my claim on it not being functional and safe.

            I’m basing my claim on the fact that it drives into trucks. Since I don’t want to be driven into a truck by my car, I would consider that to be a failure state.

            Do some research.

            • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I don’t think anyone has ever claimed it’s flawless. After all it’s still in beta version. If you hit a truck it’s because the driver wasn’t paying attention.

              I still don’t know what you’re basing these claims on except your own opinion apparently. “It’s not safe” compared to what? As far as I know Tesla FSD has had less accidents per mile than an average driver.

              In the 2nd quarter, we recorded one crash for every 4.41 million miles driven in which drivers were using Autopilot technology (Autosteer and active safety features). For drivers who were not using Autopilot technology (no Autosteer and active safety features), we recorded one crash for every 1.2 million miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles.

              Source

              Perhaps you should do some more research?

    • AreYouNotEntertained@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Humans drive using “cameras” (eyes) and no LiDAR, that’s the assumption Tesla is making — that a supercomputer can drive 10x better than humans using the same type of sensor. Nobody really knows yet if that’s true but I get the logic.

      LiDAR also is UV/visible spectrum and is blocked by dust/fog/snow/rain so it doesn’t help much in many driving situations…

      • falkerie71@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re making an argument against LiDAR with it using UV/visible spectrum, guess what uses visible spectrum to see stuff? Cameras. And they also have an unfortunate downside of not having good dynamic range, so in very bright/low light situations they probably don’t work that well either. Teslas aren’t even using infrared cameras to see in the dark to my knowledge.

      • scarilog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unsure why you are downvoted, because that is sound logic. I recall hearing on a podcast of I think a former Tesla engineer that having too many sensors potentially makes things less effective since you have to deal with different types of input, and have to crunch more data, etc. etc. Efficient development also means knowing when to cull unnecessary time sinks.

        I hate Elon as much as the next guy, but… Well, humans are obviously not perfect drivers, but Tesla clearly believes that in time, with cameras all around the car (already an improvement over human drivers), a good enough AI solution would be able to match or surpass humans.

        • falkerie71@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I still rather have good ol radar as a fallback if cameras and their AI model don’t work for some reason. They are still work in progress, and rely on trained models to recognize objects, while if a radar sees something, it is because there is something actually there and not a guess. I don’t buy the story that too much sensors is bad. Planes rely on multiple different sensors plus backups for redundancy to fly safely, self-driving cars with vastly superior tech should be able to do the same.

          • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They actually have used radar along with the cameras for a while. It wasn’t until the last few years that they decided to ditch them. I think I read that they realized it was a mistake and are going to add them back on future models.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        All it would take is 1 poorly designed aftermarket laser, or some freak prism effect from some particulate on the lens to permanently blind someone.

        It’s extremely low band infrared. It’s like the infrared lasers from your remote control it’s not going to burn you retinas out also that’s not how lasers work, you can’t convert from invisible light to visible light lasers through refraction or reflection.