Lidar vs. Tesla: the race for fully self driving cars
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 гру 2024
- In the world of autonomous vehicles, lidar sensors are the center of debate. Self-driving car companies, like Cruise and Waymo, use lidar as the key ingredient to advance their autonomous vehicle navigation while skeptics, like Elon Musk, claim it to be useless. Transportation editor, Andrew Hawkins, explores the landscape of both and why exactly lidar continues to be at the forefront of complete autonomous driving. #technology #cars #lidar
Subscribe: goo.gl/G5RXGs
Like The Verge on Facebook: goo.gl/2P1aGc
Follow on Twitter: goo.gl/XTWX61
Follow on Instagram: goo.gl/7ZeLvX
Follow on TikTok: bit.ly/42VeCVU
The Vergecast Podcast: pod.link/43033...
Decoder with Nilay Patel: apple.co/3v29nDc
More about our podcasts: www.theverge.c...
Read More: www.theverge.com
Community guidelines: bit.ly/2D0hlAv
Wallpapers from The Verge: bit.ly/2xQXYJr
Subscribe to The Vergecast on UA-cam, new episodes on Wednesday and Friday: bit.ly/3I6nJtz
How ”self-driving” do you want your self-driving car to be?
Like Bumblebee
People like me definitely need self driving cars. Every single car should be equipped with a self driving option in the future. This is the only way I could ever own a car, or else I will be riding on cabs forever.
Autopilot and Full Self Driving are two different systems and as a reporter you should know that by now 🙈. You should Compare Tesla Full Self Driving crash data to that if Waymo and Cruise along with the number of Miles traveled. Tesla autopilot it's free while Full Self Driving cost $15k so the cost of Waymo and Cruise lidar alone covers the cost of software and hardware of Tesla Full Self Driving technology.
that is the question that is trying to be answered by all the auto manufactures now. Tesla's answer is "absolute", they want the car to be able to have a destination point entered, then get there fully on it's own with zero input from the driver. other companies (GM, Ford) are looking at just removing the "tedious" portions of a drive, such as long highway commutes in heavy traffic, not point-to-point service. personally, i'm with the latter group, i don't need "self driving" to get me 6 blocks to the grocery store. however, having something that will effectively "drive" through bumper to bumper rush hour traffic, yes please.
Easy -- all the way (without compromising safety, of course).
Over the last 10 years I have witnessed both my parents having to give up driving through age-related ill-health. Even though they lived in pretty much the perfect location for walking access to their doctor, dentist, high street shops, church, etc. losing the car was still a major blow to their lifestyle. Then you have all those elderly people who continue to drive but shouldn't.
So, I'm hoping that by the time I reach the age when I should no longer be behind the wheel, self-driving cars are a reality. For the elderly, disabled, and infirm alone, this would be an amazing technology to have.
If we are going to go with self driving cars, they need to see better than we do.
Well, they don't blink, have cameras on every side, have good resolution throughout the entire field of view... How's that?
@ It's a good start. Now how solid is the protection in preventing them from controlling where we are allowed to go?
They already do see far better than we do. Can you see everything in 360° and analyse everything that's happening instantly?
We currently don't have self driving cars due to the brain, the vision side needs no update. Humans only wreck because we have an attention problem.
They need to be better at processing information. Not seing better. Reaction time is probably the higher cause of accidents compared to visibility
Removing LiDAR was about cutting costs at the risk of accidents that could otherwise be avoided. 2d cameras are not great at detecting depth especially in dark environments where the sensor gain needs to be increased to the point where the image becomes noisey and far less useful. Edit: Please read my below comments for more detail on this if you are skeptical.
Spitting more facts than the video
@@VincentKarabouladMusique I was kidding. I made a comment earlier about using cameras to detect objects and light instead of LiDAR
If humans can do it, why can’t cameras and computers?
@@chi7891because cameras are not humans? This whole comparison is silly, technology and humans both excel at certain things but the human eye in particular is incredibly hard to recreate in terms of clarity, adaptive light sensitivity; etc. again, camera sensors even today struggle in low light without heavy noise reduction/processing. This processing/noise reduction is nice for looking at images but isn’t super useful for autonomous vehicles because it ultimately either creates artifacts or just smears detail depending on the technique they use. The solution is either LiDAR or much larger camera sensors, both would be more expensive than what Tesla is doing right now.
@@owRekssjfjxjxuurrpqpqss the roads are designed for vision. If camera improvements are needed, that’s fine, but you won’t be able to recognize things like stop signs or traffic lights with LiDAR.
Im not a musk fan and I think his choice to remove radar was wrong. BUT were you unable or unwilling to compare equal data sets between Waymo and telsa? Could you not find Telsa data per one million miles or did you not even try? Just seems like bad reporting to put to compare two completely different stats.
Super quick google and I found "Autopilot got in an accident once every 4.31 million miles". So, did you not even bother to google it? Did you find different data?
I'd love an explanation because these seems like supremely shotty reporting from The Verge.
@@LiamMarcon And the data in the article includes traffic aware cruise control accidents.
They’re adding HD Radar into the new Teslas. This will complement the current sensors rather than compete with them.
Also Waymo and Cruise don't cruise on highways, do they?
Yeah this was clearly not unbiased reporting. Just another example of the media going after Musk. He appears to be Trump 2.0 in that regard.
We don't need self driving cars. We need self driving buses.
Imagine new york streets full with only long autonumes buses with 50 people each - it'll make traffic much more bearable
Or think in reverse and make less destinations for people to go to so that large buses make even more sense. Mega-City One here we gooooo
CYCLING
Longer term, you can imagine a combination of both types of vehicle -- communal and individual -- forming "virtual trains" as the travel down the major routes together, all coordinating with each other and communicating with the city grid system which optimizes the traffic flow to get everyone to their destinations as efficiently as possible. The density and speed of the traffic would be much greater than possible with people behind the wheel.
Perhaps the HOV lanes on many highways will be the first to be converted to self-driving only...
So that when it crashes, it takes out people in bulk👍
@@EnglishMike This would never work. It's tech bro nonsense. It only takes 1 car that isn't self-driving to disrupt the whole flow.
What happens when one of the cars gets hacked? You could melt down an entire city from across the globe. You could even shut down an entire country all at the same time.
Self-driving cars already exist - they're called trains.
With my commute times, and no train options, a driverless vehicle would get me back 20 hours a week in at least reading or working on my hobbies
It doesn't seem fair to me to compare Waymo's accident record in miles and Tesla's in years. It would have to be in the same unit (distance or time), although distance seems to be the best indicator.
or at least get the Tesla crash data for the specific locations (Phoenix metro area and SF metro area). There are several reasons why those two areas are chose for this type of self-driving testing.
@@rotinoma’s not so much the location but the number of miles. It simply doesn’t make sense to compare unless he had divided the number of crashes by the number of miles
That was a very cheeky biased comparison honestly
My understanding was cars like Waymo only operate in pre-mapped environments, where Teslas are built to “read the room” and figure out what’s in front of them. LiDAR or not, that approach makes a huge difference in the performance and limitations of the autonomous systems.
For the longest time some tech uses lidar maps, which doesn't allow it to adopt to roadways that's not pre-mapped. No mention of this in the video is a huge omission.
Geofenced companies do it not because they can only operate in pre-mapped areas. They do just as much of "reading the room" if not more (due to having more sensors in both quantity and variety). Even in the geofenced areas, roads change every single day, from constructions, pedestrians, double parked cars, etc., pre-mapping alone would be insufficient to begin with. Geofenced companies can lift that restriction if they want to, but they are in a world of risk if they do driverless without a geofence right now. It's the same reason why Tesla still requires a driver when using FSD.
Elon just tells you a new lie everytime you need to hear one.
I know about 10 people who invested in Tesla because "everytime someone drive a Tesla, the resolution of the map increases". Now, it's the opposite.
It is very clear to me that Tesla has already lost the race for autonomous vehicles. Dispite all the money thrown at them! it's quite impressive..
Yes, the difference is that while it should theoretically generalize better than mapping, Tesla's approach is enormously worse at actually driving.
How do you pre-map vehicle and pedestrian traffic that changes constantly?
Truly HORRIBLE crash data comparison between Teslas on Autopilot and Waymo cars. Waymos have been in 2 crashes and 18 "minor contact incidents" (whatever that means) versus Teslas have been in 736 crashes since 2019? This isn't an apples to apples comparison. You can easily google "Tesla crash data" and see that on Autopilot, there is an average of 1 crash every 4.8 million miles on Autopilot
Agreed. AWFUL reporting. Truely bad. I can't tell if they're incompetent or bias. Probably both.
P.S I don't even like Musk! But I hate bad reporting more.
@@LiamMarcon on top of what you both said autopilot isn't FSD Beta which is the appropriate comparison until Tesla has a true driverless mode
@@KaceyGreen Exactly! Not even the same things
@@LiamMarcon Haha love the transparency
What about Waymo only operating in the City, where crashes Are much more likely to happen and Teslas putting a big Chunck of the Miles on the Highway, where Even normal level 2 systems will prevent most of all crashes. Again, you also do not compare Apples with apples 😅
Waymo has had 2 crashes in the previous 1 million miles? Tesla cars drive collectively 1 million FSD miles per day. That is why the statistic is very skewed, you compare it to 4 years (4x365=1.460). This statistic is presented very misleading in your video.
Exactly
Verge being biased , shocker.
Also he compared it to Autopilot (Traffic-Aware cruise Control) and not FSD (Full Self Driving) - there is a difference
@@kayslay6195 good point, that makes it even worse 😅
Should also compare to human drivers too.
(Without checking) I would guess they are both significantly less likely to have an incident/accident and fatality.
I miss Verge science, and we need more content like this ❤. Your content recently has been all over the tech and fashion tech map.
Autopilot < Waymo < FSD
The accidents that were reported are for Autopilot which is basically Cruise Control + Lane Keep Assist. No doubt it's a misleading name but it has led to the average person believing that Teslas are already fully autonomous which I guess was important branding.
Waymo uses HD maps which means that their cars can only drive in areas that are already mapped. This is expensive and time consuming which is why it's limited to California.
FSD on the other hand relies on vision meaning the system is self contained and given that it learns from the millions of cars world wide will eventually be able to drive themselves without supervision (L4 at least). It will never be as safe as using Lidar but it's a tradeoff that's worth it.
"but it's a tradeoff that's worth it."
Without accurate like-for-like comparison data, we don't even have any idea what the tradeoff is.
IF FSD was better I'd expect FSD robotaxis to be driving around by now. Like Waymo does.
All the sensors on waymo isn’t what makes waymos drive better than a Tesla in the 2 cities waymo works in. It’s the HD maps that tell the car every move they have to make. Where as Tesla doesn’t want to really on expensive HD maps that take an enormous amount of time and energy to maintain. Tesla has basically already solved the computer vision aspect eliminating the need for all the sensors that cost hundreds of thousands per car. 6:38, you compared Tesla autopilot and waymo, autopilot and FSD are wildly different things. FSD is way more capable and can see everything, autopilot cannot
I think the Internet of Things is the ultimate way to self-driving because if everything knows about each other, than the algorithms can do the rest, but putting each thing into the IOT is the hardest part of the job.
I used to think that too. But devices are more reliant on each other which can be bad. Having a separate system that can work on its own is more secure.
@@dkdeep5505 i agree, but what im thinking is they dont reliant on each other, they just been noticed that each other is exist and making dynamic adjustments on its on, that would be different way for vehicle to sensing the world
@@adamlin5079 how would they notice?
This is a terrible idea, pedestrians and generally things other than vehicles are not IoT. What are you going to do, make it mandatory to wear some IoT chip or install an IoT app?
Uh first no that is extremely dangerous second impossible first if the internet gives out goodbye car second the internet is filled with hackers you are as good as dead if they decide to use the internet to fully control the car.
What was not mentioned ( fatalities) in the Tesla Accidents as to how many million miles driven by tesla , also not mentioned that for lidar only you need to be geofenced and not able to drive all over
Yea the video is misleading. The % of Tesla incidents is lower than Waymo incidents.
@@chrisak49 How much of that Tesla accident data happened while the car was fully autonomous? Driver assist mode is very different from fully autonomous. With an accurate like for like comparison, no accurate conclusions can be drawn.
@@EnglishMike The video is also misleading cause the guy kept saying Autopilot which is just adaptive cruise with lane keep. He doesn't include data for full self driving data because he can't get it and is probably too lazy to dig for the data.
Well this hasn't aged well. The fundamental issue that Elon understands and most other people dont, is that the important factor is the software, not the sensors. Its obvious lidar isn't necessary for successful driving because we drive successfully.
If Lidar is so amazing why is Waymo not national yet after decades of development? If you are going to make an honest comparison of the two sensor choices you cannot just mension cost.
Lidar cannot distinguish between some objects or read signs and it doesn't work well in certain weather conditions just to mention a few. There is a lot that goes into the consideration besides the cost.
That's why Waymo doesn't have just Lidar, they have a full set of sensors including cameras. Elon simps are so freaking stupid 😂😂😂
Lidar can only get range data, nothing more. You still need a 2d camera to provide the system with enough data to work with.
I think you should have also included stats of accidents with no driving assist at all.
And the stat of 1M miles with Waymo. 35M miles on the Full Self-Driving beta (although I couldn't find any accident data regarding the beta). Also the Tesla stats include traffic aware cruise control, which isn't really self driving at all. It does seems like comparing Apple to Oranges.
Obviously, humans are the problem here. Taking us out of the equation will reduce accidents.
Yeah, that section was an apples to asteroids comparison. Not good.
@DrieStone problem with the Tesla stats is the whole controversy about it disabling itself prior to impact. Just a cursory video of near misses on UA-cam or Twitter where the driver stops FSD from Killing a cyclist or running a busy stop sign and uts clear that the FSD safety stats are pretty useless and can't be compared to an autonomous vehicle like waymo where an accident is an accident, black and white.
@@torotech makes sense thanks
Forget self driving cars - give us self driving buses and autonomous subways / light rail. That’s how we could actually solve many of our challenges-climate change, urban sprawl, public health problems, social isolation/disconnection, etc.
I've seen fully autonomous vehicles in SF, Phoenix, and Austin ALL with LiDAR equipped. Tesla's FSD camera system requires a driver. It may change, but thats where we're at in 2023.
What you said is true, but a bit of an oversimplification. Waymo and Cruz are Level 4 autonomous and Tesla is Level 2 today. However Tesla is aiming for Level 5 autonomous, Waymo and Cruz are not, they are just working towards better Level 4. If you ask who is in the lead towards Level 5 its Tesla all the way, no one else has even started.
@@chrisoconnell8432 Cruise, and Waymo are fully autonomous, level 5. Just allowed to run in certain cities. Tesla's full self driving is currently level 4.
@@bingeMAFIA In Level 3, 4 and 5 the manufacturer is liable in an accident, Level 1 and 2 the driver is still liable. So Telsa is Level 2. A very capable Level 2, but still 2. Cruise and Waymo REQUIRE detailed HD maps of the area they will drive. If tomorrow you told them they have permission to drive NY City they couldn't do it because they don't have detailed maps of that city yet. Its just not possible to maintain up-to-date maps of every street on Earth. That is why their system will always be Level 4 without a rewrite from scratch.
@@bingeMAFIA - no, a level 5 car must be capabable of mastering all traffic situations. It takes millions of driven miles to feed the ai and make it drive better than a professional car driver. And guess who's going to have it first.
Lidar is more accurate. Especially at night. Yes cameras are okay and will work similar to lidar as long as there is enough light. Programming lidar is easier, and accurate, but expensive. Programming camera to create ML is difficult but justifiable in the long run, and hardware itself is cheap.
No programming lidar also requires programming the system to understand obstacles and do its work. Lidar just provides raw data the same as cameras.
@@hilmyakatsuki1665 If that raw data provides more and higher quality data about the objects around the car, then the software processing that data will be easier to code and be less prone to mistakes (all other factors being equal).
@@EnglishMike again it's not that easy. Otherwise lidar could take over the mainstream market already! Both systems need to be taught how to differentiate between objects. The Lidar system also needs a 2d system to recognize and validate the data before deciding anything. Tesla also taught and validates their 2d camera system with lidar on the testing phase before using that model on the real road for customers without lidar. Yes lidar can help but at this point there's nothing indicating that lidar provides anything meaningful more than 2d cameras.
@@hilmyakatsuki1665 Lidar has been way too expensive to be in mass produced consumer products.
Lidar isn't confused by shadows, bright sunlight or oncoming headlight beams, all of which have to be overcome when using camera systems. If AI processing has reached the point where they can be effectively overcome, then great, but it took a lot of extra work to get to that point.
Lidar is not more accurate. Especially when it's rainy or foggy it can completly fail. And this is the moment where a camera based system has to take over 100 %! Cameras (=eyes) are human proofed. There will never be cars driving with turned off lights (f.e. to be visible to animals or pedestrians) and humans don't make car accidents because they lack a 6th lidar sense. Humans overestimate themself or get distracted. It's always the same actually. So no need to change the sensors. It's the brain that has to be replaced by an AI to make driving safer.
As someone who worked with GIS, photogrammetry and with reduced acuity in one eye due to surgery ( low stereoscopic vision) I can tell you the following. LiDAR does not only produces a 3D map of the environment but for every 3D point scanned detects the doppler shift so from a single image you can tell what is around you, what is moving and what is standing. Theoretically speaking , stereo cameras or arrays of cameras can achieve near human levels of seeing but your brain can Id each an every part of the environment, can tell what is moving what is dangerous can gauge distances based on proportional sizes and many more. Also cameras are susceptible to a variety of optical illusions (forced perspectives etc) different items with near same colors and so on. I do not know if LiDAR is the cure all solution for Level 5 autonomy ( the holy grail) but is close enough.
Lidar doesn't work in the rain or fog so it's pretty much useless in most places
Its weird that Lidar cars can basically only drive in tiny pre-scanned areas, but Tesla with only cameras drive everywhere in North America. Even with Waymos avoiding freeways and driving the same routes 1/3 as fast as Tesla, its still a good company, but cant scale fast at all.
1. Tesla's can't drive anywhere on their own.
2. LIDAR can be used outside of a geofence. Mercedes uses LIDAR which allows them to reach level 3 for high traffic scenarios under 40mph.
Lastly, Waymo actually can take highways as long as a safety driver is in the car. I think they're less willing to risk a high speed accident until they're fully confident that it can handle it 100%
@@TheSpartan3669 Mercedes is also geo fenced and not a single customer got the drive pilot yet xD
@@TheSpartan3669 Tesla is trying to solve a much bigger problem. and they need data to do it. The fact it has millions of cars on the road with many drivers actually paying to Test FSD for Tesla is a huge advantage. The challenge isn't tiny areas of America avoiding the more complex scenarios. It is to drive from point A to point B in an efficient and safe way.
Waymo has the safe part in very select areas, Tesla has the point A to point B. To me Tesla will grow safer far quicker than Waymo can extend it's range of travel.
Well, Teslas CAN'T actually self-drive ANYWHERE, so any theoretical scaling doesn't matter.
@@Blaze6108 They can self-drive in myriad locations, but just not BY themselves (read “alone”) and without supervision. No car you can buy can yet. No one else is as close to that goal as Tesla, but china has a few that are pretty close (but still need pre-mapping which Tesla doesn’t).
And of course you did not mention occlusion of LiDAR in harsh environments. It becomes useless in rain, snow and fog.
Neither tech is a "magic bullet". They're complimentary, not redundant.
does cameras excel in those conditions?
@@daviidoncompared to LIDAR. Yes. But neither is “good” in the rain
@@daviidon Camera with radar (existing technology) is far more useful than LiDAR in these conditions.
I think I imagined that autonomous vehicles would share information with each other (just those within a certain distance, or on the path you your on). So it would be kinda be like a omnipresent system via cameras.
I did originally think using a combination of lidar and cameras were better (for Musk's example of a plastic bag floating in the way, causing a lidar system hitting the breaks), but now, I realise technology is getting more and more interconnected.
I think that will happen in china faster than in the west and the rest of the world , then again what are you going to do about the rural areas? that can work in urban areas but rural areas are literal dustballs territories... the vehicles will still need internal logic...
@PrograError true... I have no idea. maybe just gonna have it work as it is now? 😅 cuz if there is not much traffic, the only thing the car should be worried about is local pedestrians, wildlife, livestock, etc. Which will all be covered AI anyways
Kinda sorta, but it's extremely bad practice to rely on info sharing if you're not in a truly closed system. For example, autonomous subway trains can get away with having barely any sensors at all because the environment is so controlled that info sharing can do all the sensing for them. But for cars operating in civil environments, it is completely insane to rely on anything less than accurate perception.
Thats a sign of a bad algorithm and not a Problem of lidar. Even with lidar you have to figure out If this is an Object and how and where it moves over time, If it defies gravity and moves slowly its more likely to be a soft object. Just using a simple hittest on the depthmap from lidar is the most amateurish approach, i really hope all car manufacturers using lidar where past that point allready on day one of research! 😅
We all know Elon removed LiDAR because it's expensive. With that said, however, comparing the number of crashes something like Waymo has to Tesla's cars is like saying a starting pg who plays 38 minutes a game and has 4 turnovers is more reckless with the ball than a center who plays 7 minutes a game and is only put in to play defense. Not only is the Waymo geo-fenced, it's also mapped. It can travel routes that have been mapped before. For the most part, it also can't travel on highways and is speed reduced. It's not put in nearly the same situations the Tesla is.
Again, I really wish Elon would pu the LiDAR sensors back, along with the ultrasonic sensors. I just don't like the crash number comparison.
There was never any LiDAR in Teslas. Just radar that was removed earlier this year I think.
@@MockarutanRadar coming back with HD radar
Came here to say this, so thanks. The comparison crash data was misleading at best.
Unlike this reporter Elon will change if he is wrong, Elon was wrong about Manufacturing with only machines and robots, he stated "I was wrong about automation" he is a engineer unlike most people so if the information changes and the evidence shows it is a bad move then he will redirect. I do not think this makes him bad or stupid it is called innovation. Being wrong is only bad in school but in the real world of creativity and invention being wrong is apart of creating the right. This is unknown space for all companies and Elon does need his heart to change only the data and evidence. Learn the difference or stay lost in the sauce.
It seems to me that to be a mostly vision-based autonomous system, you'd need REALLY good cameras. Ones with insane dynamic range and resolution. After all, the same camera has to be able to look straight into a late afternoon sun and also be able to process a poorly lit country road on a moonless night. I think Elon's comments about lidar sound to me like a CEO trying to justify a cost-cutting business decision.
I've taken a cruise several times in Austin, and the cars just arent there yet. The cruise takes 25 minutes to take me from our favorite bar to my apartment, which would only be 10 mins in an uber. They are somewhat jumpy in turns and cruise has very clearly only allowed the cars to travel along predetermined routes, and avoid certain maneuvers. This causes the cars to bunch up into little trains in certain parts of downtown. Any way you slice it, we are a long way off from general purpose, level 5 autonomy.
when you talk about how many people hurt using lidar while providing the miles, you should as well compare it to tesla while providing the miles, to make them on a comparable scale
He should have also used data from city driving only and not highway... As he talked about autopilot, which is the one you can use only on highways... 2x speed kind of increases chances of injury. Tho at same time, its not even level 3 or 4 or 5, so entire fault is on humans and not on auto pilot, but heck, people will be doing what they do best "Spreading fud for the sake of it"
There is one fundamental errors in this video. You compare 2019 Autopilot data (where the cars were NOT driving by themselves in any way, it's basic lane assist and adaptive cruise control) with more recent data from the other companies where the cars are actually driving by themselves. Get some data with the latest FSD beta from Tesla, and see if the result isn't much better (factoring in the number of cars on the road from each company).
The Verge videos are usually very thorough with it's data, but this one is not.
Lol the verge is always a joke.
Things not addressed that are interesting aside from sensors:
- Usage of HD maps
- Comparison equally to number of miles driven on self driving auto pilot vs cruise control auto pilot.
- Volvo including single LiDAR sensor on new electric cars for partial self driving on highways.
- blue cruise and super cruise.
Hopefully, Waymo makes millions. Because with the Lidar vehicle expenses, operating & original product costs, its costing them billions. Most of Tesla’s crashes were caused by others and were unavoidable. Waymo isn’t allowed on freeways, so their driving is slower paced and those accidents shouldn’t do as much harm.
Having more sensors without adequate “brain” tech. doesn’t necessarily get us to true autonomy/robotaxi; in addition to more Teslas being on the road (which you rightly pointed out) Tesla FSD Beta (emphasis on BETA) also drives on highways with higher speeds, thus if crash occurs, more serious damage
I thought Elon was pretty clear that LIDAR / radar was also being removed because it was too low resolution and interfered too much with what the cameras could see and caused conflicts with decision making. Now that higher resolution radar tech is becoming available I thought they were adding that back in.
The problem with decision making is just one reason most companies will toss Lidar. The main reason is that lidar won't work in all weather condition. So they have to set up a vision system as redundancy. And as soon as they have their 100 % vision system working, they cut Lidar. Pretty logical.
Exactly low resolution radar can cause a conflict between the camera input and the radar input. Which input do you trust? ... So to prevent phantom breaking in the past it would just do nothing.
Lidar doesn't even work in heavy rain. So all companies that trust on lidar must have a 100 % working redundant camera system if they want their cars to drive autonomous in all weather conditions. Why should anyone develop two separate systems if only one of them is capable of mastering all situations? For me Lidar is only a historical intermediate step, due to the lack of skill in processing 2d camera data to 3d data. Humans only have a visual sense as well. And humans never make accidents because we lack a lidar sense. We make accidents because we overestimate ourself (driving-skills, alcohol, drugs etc.) or we get distracted. Both will not happen to computers. Since FSD Beta 11.4 it's not about what sensors anymore, but about how much data the AI has to be fed to drive better and safer than human.
Brought to you by Luminar 😂 So transparent...
Lmfao right?. What an agenda. So poorly argued too.
Cars at night are not essentially blind!
1 cars have lights or we wouldnt be able to drive them.
Cameras are also much more sensitive to small amounts of light.
Also auto pilot is not full self driving! Auto pilot is just advanced cruise control.
Can lidar read Speed limit or text in signboard?
Yes it can I've watched a lot of waymo vids on yt it will stop at the stop sign
Thumbs down. You don't give your stats in accidents/miles driven. You can't compare the numbers of accidents without a a common denominator. This comparison is misleading and that makes me think The Verge was paid by WayMo to mislead the public. Typical.
I love the bit where he tries to explain the usage of LiDar and it starts out as "Well, apple products have it" without any mention of their usage on these devices. Unintentional dunk on apple tbh.
He also didn't talk about the specific usages in farm equipment, warehouse vehicles, and aviation. Was it an unintentional dunk on those applications too? Nah, he already explained what lidar does and how it works at a high level, mentioning Apple and the other use cases is meant to briefly help visualize and associate how this sensor is applied elsewhere. Going into specific applications for products unrelated to this video means going off-topic.
I literally stopped updating my Model 3 in August 2022 because of the update disabling radar. I don't want a sensor I bought, that helps to sometimes see more than me to be disabled. I don't want autopilot to be as handicapped as me by low angled sunlight or heavy rain...
George Hotz was the first to say that we don't need LIDAR for Comma AI. They should have done the courtesy of mentioning it.
Very shallow comparison I would say. There are a lot technicalities when choosing sensors. Comparing accidents is the dumbest thing I have seen. If waymo had solved self driving through LiDAR, $6000 would be pennies for the gains that we could get. However, it's not that simple. I'm not saying LiDAR is not a good sensor. But I don't think creating realistic map of surrounding though point cloud is as necessary as people think. We can make a good enough 3D image of the surround by using multiple cameras. Software is the main bottleneck right now, not the sensors. If software reach at the level where hardware becomes the bottleneck, then we can talk about LiDAR.
Theoretically, camera can do everything LiDAR can. But the AI for the cameras are not ready yet. So in the meanwhile, one can use LiDAR to fill the gap or wait until the technologies come along. If we try to buy one of those WayMo or Cruze's cars, no one can afford it (would be hundreds of thousand dollars for all the LiDARs), so Tesla has no choice but to push the camera based autonomous driving to keep the price tag reasonable.
Hey guys i have a prjoect where i have to come come up with a way to stop damages due to close reflective objects cuasing the incoming pulse to damage the system. Tbh i didn't even know this stuff existed till a few days ago, im in second year of electronics..any suggestions??
They intentionally do not say how many miles Teslas have driven. This 1 million miles for cruise is laughable, since Tesla has more incidents but has trillions of miles driven.
Trillions??? In full self driving mode???? I think not.
I can tell you this much, if Elon is saying it's not needed and is unnecessary and expensive, then you know it actually is needed, is necessary and isn't expensive in the long run. People like him skirt safety in the name of innovation and cost cutting measures to become profitable - Look what happened to Stockton Rush, who thought the same way. LiDAR is amazing, and it gives a much more accurate level of distance measurement, 3D rendering and capability than any camera.
Tesla cars are the most safe cars in the world... Like... What the hell are you talking about?
And please, enliothing us, which human organ is equivalent to Lidar? If there is none then does it mean that no humans should be allowed to drive any cars due to increased risks?
The whole driver is in charge, can be applied to cars with Lidar also. No matter how cutting edge unless 100% safety can be garanteed drivers are always in charge unless it's like a driverless taxi, which are extra precautious. They stop even when not needed just because it's trained to be so.
Lidar absolutely helps and is better than Tesla's solution. Tesla's camera based solution has many faults which Lidar solves. On top of it, they processing isn't as heavy as you would think.
The data from the Lidar is fed into a ML model. These models although heavily resource and time intensive to train not so much when being run. And more over there will be chips that transform the Lidar to a more easily accessible and usable data. Apple is already doing it with the R1 in Vision Pro. These cars all have it.
I would trust a car with Lidar more than one without it. The depth information it provides cannot be matched with a system reliant on 2D cameras. The best it can do is add another sonar sensor to eid. But since light travels faster, that also wouldn't be a direct replacement for Lidar.
LiDAR is NEEDED for autonomous driving. Tesla is wrong.
It reconstruct the debate of bicycle that we need more than 2 wheels to avoid falling.
Of the whole spectrum of light, why limit your self to the visible spectrum
Cost and complexity. Tesla used to use radar as well, but went camera's only as sometimes the radar and camera's conflicted. Ultimately it was the camera's that were being proved correct so Tesla decided to go the camera only approach. I must say seeing what Tesla are achieving with V12 of FSD, I really think they may have cracked it.
youre not being fair with your comparisons..' per 1 million miles travelled' vs 'since 2018'... how many miles has tesla covered.. over a billion... take this assessment with a pinch of salt.. tesla rules them all..stop hating.. lol
Anyone paying any attention already knew this about LiDAR and Self-driving… was so counter productive when Elon turfed it, but the costs explained it. But it’s good to have it all wrapped up so nicely in one video.
Elon said Lidar was not needed. Seeing V12, I think he may well be proved correct.
Dissappointed in the comparison of crashes between tesla and lidar vehicles. This must be normalized for miles driven to be a fair assessment.
100% self-driving cars were a fascinating dream that will come true "next year", maybe 5-8 years ago... Now, some 8 years later, it's like that fancy uni degree you fought SOO hard to get! Received 50% of it. Getting 50% of the desired salary. And paying the student load for the next 20 years...
Yeah Elon been saying for 10 + years now that it's ''one year until we have FSD''. It will take decades before we can really trust it. Especially in Europe
Of course we need self-driving cars….there are too many distracted drivers on the road these days…..every single one of them is looking at their cell phones.
There can never be fair comparison between the two unless Tesla is given the same opportunity to do full auto drive.
Having a human driver, who understands how good Tesla drives itself in certain situations, decides when it's best to do auto drive and when to intervene is not the same level of full auto drive on the street no matter the situation.
The milage difference can never be truely compared when they are doing different things in those milage.
I’m self driving in my Tesla right now and it’s great
We need more self-driving cars in the medical field
I'm so relieved that Lidar vehicles shift liability to the auto manufacturer when it runs over a kid at a crosswalk. Venture capital spending is billions of dollars to put cab drivers out of work. The government is investing hundreds of millions of dollars into autonomous vehicle research instead of on quality public transportation. Our priorities should be people, not tech.
Tesla seems to be on that path of improving cruise control basically. It will be really really good, but still need human control.
Other companies with LIDAR seem to be towards fully autonomous.
Edit: And I think the statistics provided in the video say it for themselves which company is more successful. I think the tech will get cheaper and will probably become more affordable for regular consumers to get. That seems more reasonable than just relying on cameras. I have a (non-Tesla) car with 360° FOV and I’ll say it’s really nice for sure! But in rain or darkness… cameras don’t work. They rely on the car’s lights in the dark. In heavy rain, you better roll down your windows. I put a minor scratched on my car from my mailbox because I overly relied on the car’s cameras and couldn’t see the mailbox in the dark and rain.
You realise LiDAR cannot see in fog, dust, rain or snow. Thats why it's a dead end for truly autonomous cars, the reporter didn't even cover that side of the technology.
@@phoozle I actually didn’t! Thanks for the info! I still think it would be better than just cameras though.
You for got to mention that Waymo is a max fleet size of 700 while Tesla's has over 6 million capable of using autopilot and more than 1 million in use. Here is some very rough maths: Waymo = 1 crash for every 350 vehicles per year. Tesla = 1 crash for every 1,300 vehicles or more. Another thing you forgot to mention is that Waymo is ring fenced in a central location whereas Tesla's can drive anywhere such as rural areas where reckless drivers are way more likely to end up in fatal accidents (50% increase in fatal incidents compared to urban). Tesla's have also avoided cars that are going to cause an accident shown on their captured video footage.
Yes, yes, yes, we need self driving cars, and those self driving cars will need LiDAR! Injuries & deaths from traffic crashes will be greatly reduced when we have self driving cars. As a 70-year-old who loves to take road trips across our beautiful country I know those road trips will get shorter and shorter as my skills diminish over time. I’m counting on self driving cars to be able to continue my journeys!
Hate to break it to you 4 is the end goal 5 is not possible nor is it even being worked on you may have a very expensive and optional auto pilot in the future that is all.
The fundamental question remains, does it work in SNOWY/MUDDY conditions! No!, radar tech will always prone as all other visual optics solutions will only be used as complementary devices no matter what people say. Yes there will be SNOW or MUD covering those pretty sensors on your cars no matter where you live.
Radar or even LiDAR would've prevented any of these crashes from taking place
ofc he is wrong.
WE NEED LIDAR.
during FOG however good camera AI you train it will fail, only LiDAR will be able to save it.
Not to mention Visual AI can still make errors in identifying objects, for example if you wear a type of camouflage clothes, it will not detect you, which means it can cause accidents for such clothes/vehicles wrapped in such way, so in such cases LiDAR is the only thing that can save the day, not to mention the distance measurement is quite accurate with LiDAR as supposed to just Cameras.
In the end both lidar and 2d cameras are required to understand the environment using AI. It's not like lidar provides meaningful data. It just provides raw data. Everything depends on how those systems were built.
Forget about self driving. Radar has been reliable for basic collision avoidance and even Toyota Corolla now have it. Tesla removed it and now the cars are plagued with phantom braking and not failed to brake in actual obstacle or human. That is possibly a major factor for higher insurance cost to Tesla owners.
Who think safety was “expensive” was the guy in Titan
Wow I stopped watching after I realized how biased this was
Try taking a waymo car and a Tesla to a place neither has ever driven on before
Get back to me with the results
We already lnow
id say yes and no to the title question. hes right to train without lidar, but once its good like that adding lidar would be perfect.
Lol, reporters should not have polarising opinions
I miss the Tech Verge guy
Waymo has tons of Lidar and Cameras, including remote people controlling the car, and it cannot go anywhere geo-fenced! Tesla camera vision can drive anywhere, and it works way better than Waymo and others, including Byd!!!
As a computer scientist, I believe that more data is better than less data. The data provided by cameras and the data provided by LiDAR is different and neither product gives the “full” picture, making these two technologies complementary instead of redundant.
Initially, Elon was against LiDAR due to the cost, size, and aesthetics of the equipment. During the past decade, the technology has shrunk in size and cost so to the point where they live on our iPhones, so I’m not sure why Elon still opposes the technology in 2023.
Perhaps if Elon spent less time jerking himself off on Twitter and more time reevaluating technology trends and waking up to the fact that Waymo is leaving them in the dust, then maybe Tesla can experience some forward movement again and keep the promise of FSD that Elon has been pedaling as only 18 months away for the past 10 years.
Wow this video is on the 'verge' of being a hit piece. No mention of the Tesla occupancy network as a replacement for LIDAR? Comparing accidents from 1 million miles of driverless on curated pre mapped roads, with many million human controlled autopilot miles on all roads, without mentioning any FSD miles? Very weird.
Cameras are higher def than lidar.
Get back to me when these lidar cars drive faster than 35 miles an hour.
The ego of these tech companies is unbelievable.
i just looked up on google, "75000 to 6000 a pop" actually meant 6000 per day. They way he cover this video is a bit bias when talking about lidar and tesla. he covers all the details for lidar and pros, but never covers tesla's.
This video is not going to age well.
LiDAR schmidar…. The car could literally be fully aware of every atom within 100 miles. The real problem is real-time adaptive reasoning. Human soft gray matter fuckn rules in that department.
I think it is risky to only rely on cameras for unsupervised FSD. Let see when or if Tesla can deploy unsupervised FSD car with only cameras-
A year later, GM decides to exit its LIDAR based self-driving. I have been saying this for years---their compeition is not with each other. Their competitor is with human drive without a college degree. The key is cost. If you start with LIDAR, you are destined to fail. It will never be commerically sustaniable. Tesla has a chance, but only in places where human labor is expensive.
the tests works because it's phenix, a very simple grid, and not alot of drivers
Bait and switch....Autopilot accidents....but you didn't mention statistics from FULL SELF DRIVING.
Better public transportation/infrastructure and less reliance on cars - it's what you need.
Arguing one tech over the other is responsible. It likely to be mix of the two.
Also, there is a thing called "solid state lidar", much cheaper.
3D Lidar = capture depth info
2D Cameras = interpretations i.e. require AI guessing
Musk saying LiDAR is not necessary like the Titan submarine guy saying certification of submersibles is unnecessary. Rich people don’t value life as much as they value their businesses and egos.
Well watching V12 of FSD operating. It seems Elon may have a point.
“The company reported “ 5:39 “federal crash data” 6:00
Please provide better data citation
More to note, he mentioned auto pilot, which is the one used on highways, while compared to Waymo which only works on specific city roads, that alone makes this comparison silly.
I don't believe that some people are really still taking Elon Musk's opinion on LiDAR seriously. This man proved over and over again that he doesn't know anything about the stuff he is talking about in any subject.
I will never relinquish the the steering wheel nor will I be driven by a driverless car.
You people can take risks with your own life
Not mentioning teslas full self driving beta which is out right now for some drivers seems like a huge omission. Also, billions of miles have been driven on autopilot with a fatality rate per mile way lower than equivalent human drivers (since I last heard). Combined with their system being so flexible that geofencing isn’t required and operating at such a large scale, Tesla seems quite a bit further ahead than those other players to me.
Home is is drinking the Elon juice.
This
It's ironic that Google was and still likely is the leader in image recognition and yet still saw the need for sensor redundancy to reach necessary confidence levels for safe driverless operation. With Tesla FSD, we still see lots of issues with the perception. We often see it initially misplace objects in the world or identify objects which aren't there. If you watch FSD videos closely, you'll often see phantom road cones appear, suggesting Tesla is setting its confidence thresholds low in order to not miss things, but at the expense of occasionally seeing things that don't exist. You can also see it get fooled by reflections, sometimes showing cars driving inside buildings that have reflective windows.
if that was true, Teslas would have hundreds of fsd accidents every day. Not everything that exists in real world is represented correctly, so cones stand for different object the car wants to avoid. Finally it's the result that counts and you can see that Teslas lack practice and not lidar.
I don't know about Lidar vs Comp vision and frankly neither do these journalists. However this article is 101 of human psychology and manipulation.
1. The data compared between Waymo and Tesla is not like for like (no total miles driven mentioned for Tesla). Although the font and styling used is similar to make it seem like it is.
2. They say "experts say" that use of Radar would have prevented Tesla accidents and follow it up with "But we are not saying Radar would have prevented these accidents". Fooling the listener to think this is a neutral view.
Classic manipulation!
I think this is too much surface level analysis. In a tesla with FSD BETA the driver is in charge. if he crashes and dies, it's on him. You cannot take your attention off the road. Hence, no single lawsuit came through. Musk also explained in detail how the radar and lidar provided a lot of faulty data that made the whole system worse. Adding to that, the computing power needed to properly crunch real time lidar data is immense. No mention of this fact either in your comparison. Sry to be that guy
100%
yup
The whole driver is in charge, can be applied to cars with Lidar also. No matter how cutting edge unless 100% safety can be garanteed drivers are always in charge unless it's like a driverless taxi, which are extra precautious. They stop even when not needed just because it's trained to be so.
Lidar absolutely helps and is better than Tesla's solution. Tesla's camera based solution has many faults which Lidar solves. On top of it, they processing isn't as heavy as you would think.
The data from the Lidar is fed into a ML model. These models although heavily resource and time intensive to train not so much when being run. And more over there will be chips that transform the Lidar to a more easily accessible and usable data. Apple is already doing it with the R1 in Vision Pro. These cars all have it.
I would trust a car with Lidar more than one without it. The depth information it provides cannot be matched with a system reliant on 2D cameras. The best it can do is add another sonar sensor to eid. But since light travels faster, that also wouldn't be a direct replacement for Lidar.
@@sravansuresh7460 Thanks for clarifying. You are probably on to something. I think Andrew (or verge for that matter) has a bit of a "Elon is bad billionaire" attitude. These clickbaity titles with his name in it, and not having the full picture kinda grinds my gears. I think we both have point tho, computing power might get there sooner than I thought
@@TheBlackspotsBand For sure.
Imagine a world with perfect self driving tech, no one should buy a car, let the robots drive
Dude that's really boring,don't you want to drive sometime?
Imagine a world with perfect public transportation
@@carson9903 If by public transportation you mean individual cars with my own space
Pre planned point to point trips are not all cars are used for. If that were true people would not be buying cars now because public transportation is already available. Vehicles are used for all kinds of things public transportation can't do and for some owners pre planned trips are less than 20% of how they use their cars. People also don't hate driving, it's just as fun as it was then we turned 16 even after 50 years of doing it.
Yea that's great!, no I'll still drive myself thank you
I would like it. I can't see enough to drive due to an accoident, and I used to love driving.
This is very intressant, and Lidar is needed for full self drive, 2 in front and 1 in rear.. but i will hate if the install then like NIO does on there cars, that will be a deal breaker. also WHY is all camera in front NOT behind the headlight glass.. they will last longer.. and be much better protected.
Easy, both Baidu and Waymo are actually autonomous today on the road, Tesla is not. If Lidar is not needed, just do it, make it real.