←back to thread

319 points doctoboggan | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
mrcwinn ◴[] No.46236078[source]
This is really poor execution. You're taking a complex, low margin vehicle and introducing even more cost and supply chain complexity. On top of that, you're essentially making a proxy bet that more expensive hardware (LIDAR) will beat Tesla's software bet.

It's absolutely fair to criticize Elon for his ridiculous FSD timeline claims, but here we are now evaluating the market: if you have experienced the latest FSD, Waymo's and now Rivian's bet is just so obviously the exact wrong bet.

replies(5): >>46236251 #>>46236322 #>>46236373 #>>46236885 #>>46237691 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.46236322[source]
> if you have experienced the latest FSD, Waymo's and now Rivian's bet is just so obviously the exact wrong bet

I have. It’s wild for anyone to say this.

Waymo works. FSD mostly works, and I seriously considered getting a Tesla after borrowing one last week. But it needs to be supervised—this is apparent both in its attention requirement and the one time last week it tried to bolt into a red-lit intersection.

The state of the art is Waymo. The jury is still out on whether cameras only can replicate its success. If it can’t, that safety margin could mean game over for FSD on the insurance or regulatory levels. In that case, Rivian could be No. 2 to Waymo (which will be No. 1 if cameras only doesn’t pan out, given they have infinite money from Google). That’s a good bet.

And if cameras only works, you’ll still have the ultra premium segment Tesla seems to have abandoned and which may be wary of licensing from Waymo.

replies(3): >>46239069 #>>46239689 #>>46242793 #
Rover222 ◴[] No.46239069[source]
Waymo operates on guardrails, with a lot more human-in-the-loop (remotely) help than most people seem aware of.

Tesla's already have similar capabilities, in a much wider range of roads, in vehicles that cost 80% less to manufacture.

They're both achieving impressive results. But if you read beyond headlines, Tesla is setup for such more more success than Waymo in the next 1-2 years.

replies(2): >>46240241 #>>46240378 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.46240378{3}[source]
> Tesla is setup for such more more success than Waymo in the next 1-2 years

Iff cameras only works. With threshold for "works" beig set by Waymo, since a Robotaxi that's would have been acceptable per se may not be if it's statistically less safe compared to an existing solution.

Waymo also sets the timeline. If cameras only would work, but Waymo scales before it does, Tesla may be forced by regulators to integrate radars and lidars. This nukes their cost advantage, at least in part, though Tesla maintains its manufacturing lead and vertical integration.)

Tesla has a good hand. But Rivian's play makes sense. If cameras only fails, they win on licensing and a temporary monopoly. If cameras only work, they are a less-threatening partner for other car companies than Waymo.

replies(1): >>46242187 #
1. simondotau ◴[] No.46242187{4}[source]
In the increasingly rare instances where Tesla's solution is making mistakes, it's pretty much never to do with a failure of spatial awareness (sensing) but rather a failure of path planning (decision-making).

The only thing LIDAR can do sense depth, and if it turns out sensing depth using cameras is a solved problem, adding LIDAR doesn't help. It can't read road signs. It can't read road lines. It can't tell if a traffic light is red or green. And it certainly doesn't improve predictions of human drivers.

replies(2): >>46242859 #>>46242864 #
2. dzhiurgis ◴[] No.46242859[source]
Which begs me the question why Tesla took so long to get here? It's only since v12 it starting to look bearable for supervised use.

The only answer I see is their goal to create global model that works in every part of the world vs single city which is vastly more difficult. After all most drivers really only know how to drive well in their own town and make a lot of mistakes when driving somewhere else.

replies(1): >>46243141 #
3. KeplerBoy ◴[] No.46242864[source]
Sensing depth is pretty important though. Especially in scenarios where vision fails, radar for example works perfectly fine in the thickest of fog.
replies(1): >>46243206 #
4. simondotau ◴[] No.46243141[source]
Path planning (decision-making) is by far the most complicated part of self-driving. Waymo vehicles were making plenty of comically stupid mistakes early on, because having sufficient spatial accuracy was never the truly hard part.
5. simondotau ◴[] No.46243206[source]
In "scenarios where vision fails" the car should not be driving. Period. End of story. It doesn't matter how good radar is in fog, because radar alone is not enough.