Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#261

Post by freejazz » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 4:40 AM UTC

Nomentatus wrote: post #256

freejazz wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But you still have to address his system argument" Do you? It's his argument that he needs to substantiate... it's not my burden to confirm his conjecture. And even looking at it on its face... it's clearly self-serving bs. It doesn't seem to be a problem for any other car company, so I'm a bit confused as to why it's such a problem for Tesla. Of course, the obvious answer is that Tesla is cheap and doesn't want to…

You still have to address the argument he makes that the net effect on risk of keeping the lidar was in fact negative. You're just gainsaying it. That's not a contribution to any discussion.

I have no doubt that might be the case; as I already explained, it's obviously due to the fact that they are cheap.

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#262

Post by AlotOfReading » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 4:45 AM UTC

dmix wrote: post #227

AlotOfReading wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outcomes have to be truly and utterly fucked for "new" types of problems to be noticed in the automotive industry. Take the Toyota Unintended Acceleration case, where completely negligent software quality took over a decade and at least 89 lives to be noticed and (partially) rectified. Regulators have keen noses for very particular types of issues and rely heavily on manufacturer judgements on a lot of the rest. Issu…

I’ve read into the Toyota case in the past and it doesn’t seem like it was that obvious of a regulatory failure, where you could come to such a conclusion. Did I miss some good article covering it? Because everything I’ve read with the benefit of retrospect has been pretty critical of a lot the alleged ‘cases’ reported in that 89 number. Are you sure that’s the example you want to use for pre-emptive regulatory failu…

I think it's a good example. Regulators had failed to note the issue despite years of reports (even considering the typical noise). NHTSA closed multiple investigations on the subject and even downplayed their findings when the investigative reports were released.

I used it as an example mainly because it's so public and the underlying causes were so egregious, not to make a specific comparison with Tesla's behavior.

I've actually filed whistleblower reports in the past (not at companies I've admitted a public relationship with on this account, if you want to check) that didn't lead to anything as far as I'm aware. The bar for investigation is apparently higher than my personal limits.

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#263

Post by freejazz » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 4:52 AM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #119

Marazan wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They cannot actually believe that.

LiDAR has its own false positives that haven’t been solved, so it’s possible they believe that. I certainly was skeptical until alphago and alphafold happened.

That's especially amusing considering how if you view Go as a visual problem, it's beyond trivial compared to what is required to safely operate a motor vehicle (even just visually).

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#264

Post by freejazz » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 4:56 AM UTC

Nomentatus wrote: post #185

paulryanrogers wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also possible their LIDAR implementation was poor. Waymo uses LIDAR and has fewer incidents per mile.

Good point. I'm pretty sure it was poorer, Waymo really goes all-in on Lidar, they still top-mount it don't they? Waymo is also solving a much more constrained problem, with far fewer vehicles, so fewer accidents doesn't surprise me.

They are doing exactly what Tesla isn't willing to do and are being responsible in exactly the way Tesla isn't.

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#265

Post by pyinstallwoes » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 4:57 AM UTC

woeirua wrote: post #106

Andrej's argument about more sensors adding entropy strikes me as disingenuous considering that in the next question he then says that Tesla's biggest advantage over everyone else is "the fleet", which clearly introduces orders of magnitude more entropy into the system than anything else. Can you imagine the infrastructure required to gather video from "the fleet" anytime a car sees something unexpected? How about di…

Your comparison is a little short sighted because your example would require fleet * additional sensor entropy rather than fleet on itself. And if fleet on itself is adequate then anything extra is simply inefficient at best.

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#266

Post by CyanBird » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 5:01 AM UTC

Reason077 wrote: post #257

RC_ITR wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, yes, cars that are programmed to have AEB: perform well at AEB and not other tasks. We are in agreement here. (I even agree with you that those cars use Radar for AEB). Now, where we disagree is you implying that cars with AEB-level radar (literally $10 off-the-shelf parts with whatever sensor fusion some MobilEye intern dreams ups) are somehow the same as self-driving cars (the goal of Tesla Autopilot). Every se…

> ”There is no one sensor that will do it. Full stop.” Yet somehow, humans can drive cars with just a pair of optical sensors (mounted on a swivelling gimbal, of sorts). In theory, a sufficiently capable AI should be able to drive a car at least as well as a human can using the same input: vision.

> sufficiently capable AI

And Tesla lacks that, so therefore they ought not simply rely on cameras and ought use extra auxiliary systems to avoid danger to their consumers, they are not doing this because it reduces their profit margins, alas, this hn thread

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#267

Post by freejazz » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 5:02 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #3

TheLoafOfBread wrote: post #2

This whole question about the vision boils down to "humans don't need it so cars should not need it too" the problem with this statement is that humans does not have wheels to move around, they have legs, but wheels are ridiculously simple compared to 4 legs tapping 160km/h on a highway. Same for birds - they also does not need jet engines to fly around, but imagine Airbus A380 flapping its wings and what kind of com…

But the question at hand is system control, not locomotion! You're not asking the automation to walk (well, I mean someday we will, but Teslas have wheels), nor the aircraft to flap. We want the automation to do what a human pilot would do. And that works with eyes. No, I think this argument is largely correct. And frankly settled: anyone who's driven recent FSD beta versions knows very well that the cars "see just f…

Disregarding everything else about your post, which was better addressed by others, I'm amused that you think the FSD being twitchy reflects safety.

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#268

Post by aaron695 » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 5:02 AM UTC

CharlesW wrote: post #11

I thought it was telling that Andrej immediately "reframed" the question because Lex asked the "wrong question". This is a classic evasion technique one learns from experience and/or media training. Lex's comment immediately after was a clever and gentle dig at Andrej's response. It seemed like all the "full cost" negatives Andrej mentioned were related to Tesla's ability to execute, and not what would actually produ…

No post body was provided.

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#269

Post by numpad0 » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 5:05 AM UTC

Reason077 wrote: post #257

RC_ITR wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, yes, cars that are programmed to have AEB: perform well at AEB and not other tasks. We are in agreement here. (I even agree with you that those cars use Radar for AEB). Now, where we disagree is you implying that cars with AEB-level radar (literally $10 off-the-shelf parts with whatever sensor fusion some MobilEye intern dreams ups) are somehow the same as self-driving cars (the goal of Tesla Autopilot). Every se…

> ”There is no one sensor that will do it. Full stop.” Yet somehow, humans can drive cars with just a pair of optical sensors (mounted on a swivelling gimbal, of sorts). In theory, a sufficiently capable AI should be able to drive a car at least as well as a human can using the same input: vision.

> humans can drive cars

Needs emphasis on can

Re: Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

#270

Post by martindbp » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 5:10 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #100

fzeroracer wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The LIDAR folks were wrong, basically. According to who? Tesla? Because Tesla has a vested interest in trying to prove that they're right even if they're obviously wrong. That's why they constantly try to downplay failures, software issues, device issues etc. I'm very confused by the attempts to discredit the usefulness of LIDAR. It's another tool you can use to improve the accuracy of your model. Sure, you can use…

The causality goes the other way. The LIDAR claim was that Tesla's vision approach couldn't work. It did.

Let's do a thought experiment: if Waymo could have seen 10 years ago how well FSD perception works today, would they have invested so heavily into LiDAR? Maybe the answer is still yes, because with the low volumes of vehicles they have they can afford to put it in, but it's not clear cut. If you could show FSD to ML/CV engineers 10 years ago their minds would have been completely blown. My mind is still blown by how well it actually works.