Waymo CEO explains why Tesla’s camera-only self-driving falls short
25 points by theanonymousone 2 hours ago | 41 comments

theahura 2 minutes ago
i know this doesnt take away from the point of the article, but the whole thing is written by ai which just immediately makes me distrust it
reply
theshrike79 40 minutes ago
Lidar will give you XYZ (z = distance) on a single datapoint, cameras give you XY and you need to calculate the Z from multiple cameras.

Lidar is ugly and expensive, but requires way fewer cycles to calculate distances. And it works through fog and even some obstacles, nor does it care about glare or get "scared" of shadows.

If we had infinite compute in the car, cameras would be the obvious solution ...but we don't. You can get "Pretty good" with cameras, but still people find specific spots where the car is 100% sure a shadow under a bridge is a car or something stupid like that.

reply
huflungdung 7 minutes ago
[dead]
reply
tito 28 minutes ago
$60,000 for car with sensors? I'm delighted to hear Waymo may be anticipating such low price points: "We are hearing that Waymo is close to having its entire package (car + Waymo sensor suite and driver) at around $60,000"
reply
xnx 19 minutes ago
The 100% tariffs on Chinese cars have been the biggest obstacle from not getting to that cost point sooner.
reply
HiJon89 12 minutes ago
> “Humans of course can drive with just eyes, so there’s that proof of existence,” he said. “If the goal were to just approximately match human performance or to build an assist product, that’s a very reasonable way to go.”

It feels like there's a lot of assumptions baked in here. For example, do humans get in accidents because eyes are insufficient driving sensors? Or because human drivers get tired, distracted, make mistakes, etc.

Also, you can put 10 cameras on a car looking in all directions at the same time, which feels materially different from a human that only has 2 eyes which can only look in a single direction at a time.

It's possible that massively superhuman driving performance can't be achieved with just cameras, but I'm not seeing a strong case for that being made here.

reply
AngryData 5 minutes ago
Also humans can move their heads around which gives extra parralax information and thus better depth perception than two static cameras would imply.
reply
hagbard_c 31 minutes ago
Competitor explains why competition's product falls short - film at 11. I'd say the proof is in the pudding, which system shows the best results under different circumstances. I suspect the end result will be that a combination of cameras and some scanning apparatus - lidar, radar, sonar - gives the best results and that self-driving systems will converge on that combination.
reply
senordevnyc 28 minutes ago
We already have those results. It’s why Waymo is doing millions of paid rides per month while Tesla is LARPing a robotaxi service that’s basically doing zero fully autonomous rides, as far as anyone can tell.
reply
randyrand 57 minutes ago
Right. But are $200K worth of extra sensors actually worth it or are 10+ cameras already safe enough?

This article makes no attempt to answer the actual meat of the question.

Ultimately, people will vote with their wallet.

p.s. I wonder if you could prevent glare by placing an LCD-like device in front of the lens dynamically blocking out the sun.

reply
wasabi991011 24 minutes ago
Where did you get $200k worth of extra sensors?

Also, contrary to your statement, the article directly addresses the meat if the question:

> The disagreement is whether “good enough to help a human drive” ever becomes “good enough to remove the human,” and his answer is no, because the sensing tops out before you get the last few nines.

> Now, Tesla would point to its active Robotaxi service as an example of “removing the human”, but Dolgov also said that camera-only is also good for a demo, and that’s basically what Tesla’s Robotaxi service is right now.

reply
Animats 23 minutes ago
LIDAR units are nowhere near that expensive. Even ten years ago, the Velodyne top of car units only cost about $80,000.

The short range ones, found at vehicle corners and on the rear, are now around $200 - $1500. The long range car-top unit is still expensive, around $10,000, and that's dropping. The whole sensor suite on a Waymo is probably under US$20,000 right now. If that.

The future direction for automotive seems to be more car-top sensors with narrower fields of view that add up to a full circle. Only the one that looks ahead needs 300m range.

reply
parl_match 14 minutes ago
Current estimates put the Ojai sensor cost between $15k and $30k. My inclination is that there is confusion between BOM and constructed cost.
reply
curuinor 50 minutes ago
Article has a paragraph about how lidar is rapidly getting cheaper, so the camera comparison is only temporary

Dolgov also pushed back on the one knock that camera-only fans always reach for: cost. Waymo is on its sixth generation of hardware, and he said each generation has drastically cut the price. Betting against sensors like lidar on today’s prices, he warned, means betting on “a number that has a fairly short shelf life.”

reply
dgrin91 41 minutes ago
Thats the million (billion? trillion?) dollar question. Will it get cheap enough? Will it get cheap enough to put on 100 million+ vehicles and be competitive with cameras? I honestly don't know the answer, but I haven't seen strong evidence to point to yes.
reply
parl_match 13 minutes ago
> Will it get cheap enough?

An Ojai costs less than a mid tier luxury vehicle. Is that not cheap enough?

And the price is only coming down.

reply
senordevnyc 29 minutes ago
It’s already there.
reply
tqi 40 minutes ago
"Ultimately, people will vote with their wallet"

Seems like a bad way to legislate this, since everyone else on the roads pays the price for cut rate self driving

reply
ls612 28 minutes ago
If 2x Mk 1 eyeballs are good enough then I figure cameras can get there too. Or are we going to outlaw that as well because of competitive incentives of Waymo?
reply
9dev 21 minutes ago
Do you have any conception of how massively, incomprehensibly, extremely superior our sensory system is to any kind of camera-based computer vision we can make?
reply
ls612 15 minutes ago
In terms of dynamic range and color space? Yes absolutely. But for driving you don't really need a huge color space and for dynamic range you can just use separate cameras for daytime and nighttime.
reply
bigtex88 14 minutes ago
Tesla fanboys aren't known for logic or rigorous thinking.
reply
site-packages1 4 minutes ago
Hi, Elon! Big fan of the Wiki page about your list of predictions for autonomous driving: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...
reply
ls612 2 minutes ago
I wish I were as rich as Elon but alas I'm just an ordinary person who appreciates more than one company competing to deploy autonomous driving technology. Appreciate the vitriol though, it tells me a lot about you as a person.
reply
site-packages1 45 seconds ago
Excuse me did you just call me a highly corrosive acid made from sulfur dioxide? Reported.
reply
afavour 25 minutes ago
Which is why we need strong regulation. People shouldn’t be able to vote with their wallet when other peoples lives are at stake.
reply
foxyv 36 minutes ago
Personally I would rather vote to ban them if they aren't safe enough. If car makers want to cheap out at the expense of public safety they should go to prison for the people they kill.
reply
parl_match 16 minutes ago
> But are $200K worth of extra sensors actually worth it

Of course not!

So, you may be surprised to find that Waymo's sensor package doesn't cost $200k. Whoops!

reply
ed_balls 29 minutes ago
> Ultimately, people will vote with their wallet.

Nope, you need a regulatory approval, insurance etc. Self driving cars need to be 10x the average driver. So the trillion dollar question is when Lidar will meet all requirements and when camera-only.

1) Both in 2028

2) lidar in 2030 and cameras in 2035

3) Gov will require lidar for full self driving

reply
otterley 4 minutes ago
> Self driving cars need to be 10x the average driver.

Why? So long as they're insured and their owners can be held criminally liable for injuries just as a human driver would be, why does the bar have to be higher?

reply
senordevnyc 29 minutes ago
You’re like 2-3 orders of magnitude off on your cost there.
reply
FireBeyond 5 minutes ago
> I wonder if you could prevent glare by placing an LCD-like device in front of the lens dynamically blocking out the sun.

Elon has already lied, on an investor call, about how such things are not necessary - he referenced how "Tesla cameras can count photons", as a reason why they were not affected by fog, rain, or snow.

Except, no they can't, and they never will be able to. Not the cameras in any Tesla now (and even then). It's a completely different type of camera (and it would do effectively nothing useful from a visualization perspective, let alone functional camera for human viewing). And even if they changed the camera, or added some, well, you can't count photos if you're not in an enclosed space (you know, like the open road).

This is where Elon gets really dangerous, in my mind, he knows enough to be dangerous, he knows what to say that convinces the layperson, or investor, passes the initial sniff test only to dramatically fall over when you investigate.

reply
dgarrett 20 minutes ago
I can purchase a self-driving Tesla at a reasonable price, in-line with other cars of the same class.

I can't purchase a Waymo at any price.

reply
kube-system 5 minutes ago
"FSD (Supervised)" is a marketing name... which they updated with the parenthetical almost certainly because of brewing legal issues with false advertising. It does not self-drive.

https://www.tesla.com/support/fsd#pay-attention

> FSD (Supervised) is an advanced driver assistance system that is intended to be used only with a fully attentive driver. It does not turn a Tesla into a fully autonomous vehicle.

reply
xnx 18 minutes ago
If Teslas could self drive you could sit in the back seat, or sleep, or send the car somewhere without being in it. Elon really wants them to, but Tesla's do not self drive.
reply
swingandamiss 11 minutes ago
If Rivian was completely equal with Tesla at FSD, your tone would be completely different about Rivian. We understand.
reply
xnx 4 minutes ago
Elon's an ass, but the world needs self driving in as many places, from as many providers, as soon as possible.

I wish Elon wasn't so stubborn about admitting he was wrong.

reply
parl_match 18 minutes ago
You can't purchase a level 3 Tesla at any price, either.

To me, true self-driving starts at level 3. Otherwise, it's supervised.

And Tesla selling their product as "Full Self Driving (Supervised)" is like selling "Fully Cooked Meal (Frozen)". No! You call it a "frozen meal"!

reply
trentor 18 minutes ago
"self-driving" in better than ideal conditions.
reply
vel0city 17 minutes ago
You can't buy a self-driving Tesla today. Even Tesla tells you that in the fine print. Its self-driving (supervised). If it was actually self driving, they wouldn't be saying (supervised).
reply
xgulfie 10 minutes ago
My 2013 Prius does this too, if I let go of the wheel it goes basically straight until it needs me to take over and adjust its trajsctory
reply
bigtex88 15 minutes ago
What does this have to do with anything at all?
reply