Why Tesla removed radar and ultrasonic sensors [video]

Post by quonn » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 9:16 AM UTC

YZF wrote: post #132

FreakLegion wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In other words, the results are better, but not enough to make up for the fact that Telsa can't support additional sensors without incurring a prohibitive amount of additional risk to Tesla. Risk to passengers doesn't appear to be a consideration. You may be right about the actual decision process Tesla went through, but Karpathy is right in principle. One of the first things he says is "there can be problems with…

Taking his point to the extreme why use 8 cameras? just use 4? 1? One photo-diode? Cameras can also fail at run-time there can (and is) be variability in how they're mounted, in the lenses, in the sensors. They can get blinded or not get enough light. Their cabling can fail random components can fail. Tesla has claimed that vision outperforms vision+radar but anecdotal reports don't seem to support that conclusion. I…

Post by lolc » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 9:31 AM UTC

bonestamp2 wrote: post #288

Reason077 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ”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.

Yes, a "pair" of optical sensors. Tesla is at a disadvantage compared to humans -- they do not do stereoscopic imaging, which makes distance of objects less reliable -- they try to infer distance from a single flat image. Humans having two sensors pointed in the same direction gives us a very reliable way of determining distance (up to a relevant distance for driving at least).

Post by underwater » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 9:49 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #236

flashgordon wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was hilarious. Basically (unless this needs a reframing/realignment/repositioning/reorienting): Q: "are less sensors less safe/effective?" A: "well more sensors are costly to the organization and add more tech debt so safety is orthogonal and not worth answering".

It is a hard question to answer. It’s like asking if more programmers on a project will allow it to be completed faster with higher quality. Ya, theoretically they could, in practice not likely. More sensors are like more programmers, theoretically they can be safer and more effective, but in practice they won’t be. Sensor fusion is as hard a problem as scaling up a software team.

Post by ClumsyPilot » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 9:53 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #236

flashgordon wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was hilarious. Basically (unless this needs a reframing/realignment/repositioning/reorienting): Q: "are less sensors less safe/effective?" A: "well more sensors are costly to the organization and add more tech debt so safety is orthogonal and not worth answering".

It is a hard question to answer. It’s like asking if more programmers on a project will allow it to be completed faster with higher quality. Ya, theoretically they could, in practice not likely. More sensors are like more programmers, theoretically they can be safer and more effective, but in practice they won’t be. Sensor fusion is as hard a problem as scaling up a software team.

Post by mgoetzke » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 9:55 AM UTC

hbarka wrote: post #260

Intuition + other examples tell you that radar and ultrasonic sensors work. Why do we twist ourselves to believe otherwise? Elon removed the radar and ultrasonics for the simple fact that its supply chain logjam was screwing up the manufacturing schedule. They also realized that the profit margin can be sustained in an inflationary environment by simply removing these parts [1]. “Oh, we were going to remove them anyw…