Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 582 posts

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#161

Post by cyanydeez »

estearum wrote: post #159
galangalalgol wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasoning is cynical but sound. If the system uses only the sensing modes people have, it will make the mistakes people do. If a jury thinks "well I could have done that either!" You win. It doesn't matter if your system has fewer accidents if some of the failure modes are different than human ones, because the jury will think "how could it not figure that out?"

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 acci…

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

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#162

Post by cyanydeez »

SkiFire13 wrote: post #141
hinoki wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to look this up, because I had never heard of it. How could a lens be damaged by infrared lasers? It turns out it’s the sensors that are easily damaged by high powered lidar lasers. https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/keeping-lidars-from-zapping-ca...

> The biggest concern is not photographic cameras but rather the video cameras mounted on autonomous cars to gather crucial information the cars need to drive themselves. So they don't care if that breaks my phone camera? Wtf?

The Epstein classes argument is: If youre not my property, why should We care?

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#164

Post by spyder »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #119

Since lidar has distance information and cameras do not, it was always a ridiculous idea by a certain company to use cameras only. Lidar using cars are going to replace at least the ones that don't make use of this obvious answer to obstacle detection challenges.

Yea, even in the case they could match human level stereo depth perception with AI, why would they say "no" to superhuman lidar capabilities. Cost could be a somewhat acceptable answer if there wouldn't be problems with the camera only approach but there are still examples of silly failures of it. And if I remember correctly they also removed their other superhuman radar in their newer models, the one which in certain conditions was capable of sensing multiple cars ahead by bouncing the signal below other cars.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#165

Post by b112 »

hinoki wrote: post #87
esskay wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RIP to every single camera in existence if that happens. Lidar is awful with damaging camera lenses.

I had to look this up, because I had never heard of it. How could a lens be damaged by infrared lasers? It turns out it’s the sensors that are easily damaged by high powered lidar lasers. https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/keeping-lidars-from-zapping-ca...

If this is true, the eyes are no better. Especially as it can't be seen, who will look awsy? And at night, with open irises?

There was someone who had his eyes damaged by sitting next to a heater.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#166

Post by FpUser »

Below is one of the comments poster to original article, reading it makes me think that most of the whole article has been regurgitated by some AI:

>"This misleading article contains numerous factual errors regarding automotive lidar. Here are the most glaring:

There are multiple manufacturers, including Hesai, that use mechanical means for at least one scan axis and are already sold for a fraction of the "$10k - $20k" price noted by the author. Luminar itself built this class of scanners before going bankrupt.

Per Microvision's own website, the Movia-S does not use a phased array and also does not have a range anywhere near 200m.

Velodyne and Luminar do not even exist as companies anymore. Both have gone bankrupt and been acquired by competitors."

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#167

Post by Someone »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #119

Since lidar has distance information and cameras do not, it was always a ridiculous idea by a certain company to use cameras only. Lidar using cars are going to replace at least the ones that don't make use of this obvious answer to obstacle detection challenges.

> Since lidar has distance information and cameras do not, it was always a ridiculous idea by a certain company to use cameras only

Human eyes do not have distance information, either, but derive it well enough from spatial (by ‘comparing’ inputs from 2 eyes) or temporal parallax (by ‘comparing’ inputs from one eye at different points in time) to drive cars.

One can also argue that detecting absolute distance isn’t necessary to drive a car. Time to-contact may be more useful. Even only detecting “change in bearing” can be sufficient to avoid collision (https://eoceanic.com/sailing/tips/27/179/how_to_tell_if_you_...)

Having said that, LiDAR works better than vision in mild fog, and if it’s possible to add a decent absolute distance sensor for little extra cost, why wouldn’t you?

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#168

Post by bluGill »

galangalalgol wrote: post #143
zelphirkalt wrote: post #119

Since lidar has distance information and cameras do not, it was always a ridiculous idea by a certain company to use cameras only. Lidar using cars are going to replace at least the ones that don't make use of this obvious answer to obstacle detection challenges.

The reasoning is cynical but sound. If the system uses only the sensing modes people have, it will make the mistakes people do. If a jury thinks "well I could have done that either!" You win. It doesn't matter if your system has fewer accidents if some of the failure modes are different than human ones, because the jury will think "how could it not figure that out?"

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.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#169

Post by mytailorisrich »

estearum wrote: post #159
galangalalgol wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasoning is cynical but sound. If the system uses only the sensing modes people have, it will make the mistakes people do. If a jury thinks "well I could have done that either!" You win. It doesn't matter if your system has fewer accidents if some of the failure modes are different than human ones, because the jury will think "how could it not figure that out?"

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 acci…

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.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#170

Post by small_model »

UltraSane wrote: post #127
small_model wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Tesla wouldn't stop for a puddle. Also its not locked to a small geofenced area (people have driven coast to coast without a single intervention on FSD including parking spot to parking spot) when I can buy a Waymo vehicle that does this then Waymo would have caught up with Tesla.

Your puddle example is utterly irrelevant. Tesla's are notorious for phantom breaking. Robotaxis are very much locked to tiny geofenced areas. Some even shaped like a penis because Musk is such a child. "people have driven coast to coast without a single intervention on FSD including parking spot to parking spot" I find this claim very dubious. Prove it. Teslas never drive empty for a very good reason.

Err they have lots of Model Ys in Austin as Robotaxis right now with no drivers. I guess this is also 'dubious'. Look it's clear you have a huge bias I would urge you to read up on https://grokipedia.com/page/List_of_fallacies otherwise your emotional responses will blind you to reality.
Post reply on HN