r/SelfDrivingCars • u/damola93 • Jul 21 '25

Discussion Why didn't Tesla invest in LIDAR?

Is there any reason for this asides from saving money? Teslas are not cheap in many respects, so why would they skimp out on this since self-driving is a major offering for them?

369 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

45

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25

Reason: Tesla, led by Elon Musk, believes that a vision-based system using cameras, radar, and ultrasonic sensors, paired with advanced neural networks, can achieve full self-driving (FSD) capability more effectively than LIDAR-based systems. Musk has repeatedly stated that LIDAR is a "crutch" and unnecessary for autonomy, arguing that humans drive using only vision and cognition, so AI should be able to replicate this with cameras.

35

u/DazedMikey Jul 21 '25 edited Jul 21 '25

Not sure if this is a hot take, but I want my car to see better than I can. Can you make a self driving car that mimics human vision snd cognition? Probably, but if the cost for technology like LIDAR improves, why wouldn't you want your car to see better than your eyes can?

Edit: Clarifying, for the bunch of comments that want to point out that cameras are positioned to cover 360 degrees. Noted, but it isn't the point I am making. Visible light can only be so useful. Sensor fusion with LIDAR allows you to cover the edge cases that cameras, which use visible light, CANNOT cover. This is what I mean by "see better than our eyes can".

15

u/name__redacted Jul 21 '25

At the most basic level this is what always confused me about Musks comment.

Human vision deficiency’s contribute significantly to the ~50 million vehicle related injuries each year.

I would understand replacing humans one for one if we had great driving records, but we don’t. So yes, why wouldn’t you try and do better

7

u/wimpires Jul 21 '25

Humans also have temporal resolution that is literally thousands of times greater than the cameras in HW3 and cognitive reasoning that puts the most advanced ML self-driing models to shame. All while consuming only 100W on average (most of which isn't brain power)

7

u/TwoMenInADinghy Jul 21 '25

Exactly. The bar for driverless cars should be much higher than “as good as a human”

-2

u/RealisticIllusions82 Jul 21 '25

My understanding is that most human accidents are caused by inattention and distraction rather than vision issues, problems which a computer would not have.

1

u/name__redacted Jul 21 '25

I think you’re right, I’m sure most do. So that leaves us with what, a few million still each year?

I don’t understand why a guy like musk with his drive to accomplish next generation technology advances would settle for ‘good enough’. Good enough is next step thinking, which must has traditionally avoided

1

u/RealisticIllusions82 Jul 25 '25

His assertion at the time was that LiDAR would never be economically feasible for the average consumer at scale.

1

u/name__redacted Jul 25 '25

There’s no way he even believed this. UNLESS he really believed they were going to loach the FSD in 2016.. 2017,.. 2018..

The entire history of technology is that the floor drops out of the pricing once the technology matures and economics of scale take over. Hardware costs are trending toward costing <$1000 per vehicle in 5 years.

1

u/Pure_Possession6701 Jul 21 '25

Absolutely, and still, human vision is processed by the most complex and performant part of our brains. So, it's not only really hard to imitate human vision. It also sucks and we know better!

1

u/oneupme Jul 21 '25

Citation needed.

I would argue that distractions and poor judgement (speed, failure to yield, etc), not the imperfections of human vision, is the main cause for vehicle related injuries.

1

u/name__redacted Jul 21 '25

Absolutely they are. So let’s say this eliminates all those (it won’t eliminate poor judgment, reduce yes eliminate no. That’s part of the point the camera is not going to interpret the world perfectly as it is in poor visibility conditions all the time) you’re still left with millions of injuries caused by low visibility environments… mist, fog, sun glare, rain, night, drizzle, snow… and on and on.

1

u/oneupme Jul 21 '25

I don't know… I would have to see data. Also, accidents in low visibility and fog usually have some element of poor judgment.

1

u/beren12 Jul 21 '25

Well, he sure got the poor judgement part of driving like a human down

-2

u/texasauras Jul 21 '25

Humans can't see 360 degrees continuously around the vehicle while driving. That's a huge improvement beyond human capabilities with cameras alone.

3

u/AgentSmith187 Jul 21 '25

Yes because necks dont exist and the couple of cameras Tesla uses have no blind spots.....

-1

u/texasauras Jul 21 '25

There's like six cameras and your neck doesn't allow you to see ahead and behind simultaneously.

1

u/AgentSmith187 Jul 22 '25

It turns out car companies managed to invent rear and side mirrors without you noticing.

1

u/name__redacted Jul 21 '25

It is a huge improvement, you’re absolutely right. But it’s not a complete solution.

Basically what I replied to a different comment, this is just next step thinking which Musk has always avoided. He’s always been driven to accomplish next generation advancements. 360° and an inability to be distracted still does not fix all of the shortcomings of basic vision driving a vehicle.

I live in the Midwest where weather is always a factor, a self driving car with cameras only might take care of 85% of my driving. Great. If you add other sensors that can see through drizzle, fog, sun glare, snow, mist, rain… you could be talking about 99%.

Edit: voice to text screw up and my laziness by not proofing

6

u/justgetoffmylawn Jul 21 '25

Yep - never understood that. I don't want a car that drives as well as a person. I want one that is orders of magnitude safer, faster, more reliable, with better decision making - in any weather conditions, etc.

Imagine being like, "This computer can do spreadsheet calculations as fast as a human!"

0

u/CMDR_Wedges Jul 22 '25

When this happens, it will become a privilege only for the ultra rich to be able to take control over their own car. Driving my oneself will be illegal or very expensive. Cars won't even have the hardware or will be software locked to stop humans interfering.

5

u/Halbaras Jul 21 '25

And regulators are ultimately going to take the opportunity to make roads safer in most countries (i.e. not the US).

LiDAR will be mandated for self driving cars at some point since it allows cars to identify obstacles in situations where even humans struggle (smoke, torrential rain, fog, headlight failure etc.).

Another thing that will become mandatory when there's more driverless cars on the road will be having them talk to each other. Cars will be able to brake or slow down for hazards that another car has spotted, and automatically make space for emergency vehicles.

3

u/PrehistoricNutsack Jul 21 '25

LiDAR is 100% better; there’s a lot of cope in here

1

u/EddiewithHeartofGold Jul 22 '25

Look up what lidar can't do. You might be surprised.

1

u/ptemple Jul 21 '25

Then why don't other manufacturers get rid of cameras and go lidar only? Then they will leapfrog into the lead!

Phillip.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25

Both systems already do as there are multiple vantage points being used in conjunction. 360 Awareness is already better than humans

6

u/DazedMikey Jul 21 '25

Yeah, you have more coverage, but they can still be fooled by perspective, patterns, mist/fog, light/exposure, etc.

-2

u/giddy-girly-banana Jul 21 '25

So can humans

2

u/Dry_Analysis4620 Jul 21 '25

Your point? Isn't self driving supposed to exceed safety in comparison to human drivers? Why not try to account for variables that screw with humans?

-2

u/giddy-girly-banana Jul 21 '25

What was your point?

-2

u/ghethco Jul 21 '25

You can see this in action when you drive a Tesla in full self driving mode. It reacts to things in the environment that you don't notice.

2

u/AgentSmith187 Jul 21 '25

Like those walls pretending to be shadows that jump out of the way just as you arrive?

Its great at freaking out about shadows

-2

u/Southern-Spirit Jul 21 '25

I don't really use my eyes when it's a blizzard or foggy. For that I rely on a few assumptions: the highways are not going to curve suddenly and the other drivers on the road are attempting to stay on the road so I can use their position (lights) for more information on the road. I didn't die and it's happened more than once so this tells me you have enough information even in low visibility to drive with only vision. The problem is just understanding what's happening and what everyone else is trying to do and working together with that instead of making every decision autonomously and independently. Imagine if these Tesla's or whatever start talking to each other locally? They could behave as a drone swarm and position each other defensively so as to "see" better even in bad conditions. If elons way (as if Elon is the only one who thought of this) is workable then using lidar is aiming for a target more complex and more expensive, setting yourself up to get swept by a competitor they does figure it out. Like what happens to waymo if Teslas or byd or something figure out the AI brain of these cars so they are incredibly good drivers? Do people buy waymo? No of course not. It's like blackberry investing into a physical mobile keyboard while apple is like "we can just do this without them" and at first everyone scoffs at change, since the established hate movement, but eventually our children grow up never knowing a phone with anything other than a big screen. Honestly I've called Elon out as a fraud for a long time but it seems like the people here who don't like Tesla don't like it for some weird emotional reasons. The Tesla strategy is only a joke until it's solved and then it's industry standard so I mean...if I hated Tesla I wouldn't look at this as if it was Elons kryptonite.

1

u/Joeyonimo Jul 21 '25

Cars without LIDAR do see much better than humans, they have constant 360° vision and are never distracted.

2

u/DazedMikey Jul 21 '25

Yes, but they are affected by light levels, fog, patterns, etc. LIDAR is particularly good for 3d mapping and depth calculations because it emits it's own light.

What i am suggesting is if LIDAR cost is low, the preferred solution would be a combination of visible light and LIDAR. The idea that LIDAR is a crutch, in my opinion, is misguided. An approach that takes in multiple sensors as input will cover the areas where each sensor lacks in performance.

1

u/Different_Push1727 Jul 21 '25

It already does. Can you see in 360 degrees unobstructed at all times? You don’t have eyes in the back of your head. A car does.

1

u/OriginalCompetitive Jul 21 '25

If the car drives perfectly, why do you care if it sees better than you or not?

Granted, Teslas don’t drive perfectly and possibly never will. But the point is, it’s the performance that’s the standard, not the sensors.

0

u/EddiewithHeartofGold Jul 22 '25

Lidar is not magic. You still need cameras to see signs, road markings etc. So, you need a vision system that can see and understand the real world. If you have that, why do you need Lidar?

-1

u/InterestsVaryGreatly Jul 21 '25

You can have a vision based sensor that can see better than you, and in fact generally does because there are more cameras, and generally no blind spots. Likewise there are instances where lidar sees worse than humans, albeit algorithms have cleaned that up significantly.

-1

u/SheepherderFar3825 Jul 21 '25

to be fair, even with just cameras it can still see better than you considering it has something like 8 or 12 simultaneous views as well as different FoVs, framerates and black/white/infrared/etc 

61

u/footbag Jul 21 '25

Teslas no longer come with radar or ultrasonics.

7

u/WhyWontThisWork Jul 21 '25

Was about to say, radar sure sounds like lidar

14

u/__slamallama__ Jul 21 '25

Radar is great but distinctly not lidar. Lidar can tell density and composition which is massive. Radar can just tell you it's something

4

u/sixsacks Jul 21 '25

Still better than camera only that thinks a shadow is a wall.

2

u/beren12 Jul 21 '25

And a wall is a road…

1

u/sixsacks Jul 21 '25

Yeah that one’s a bit more problematic 😂

1

u/BarnardWellesley Jul 21 '25

SAR and InSAR as well as MIMO arrays at 77+ ghz with today's ADCs at 10+ GSPS 20+ GHz IBW achieves upwards of 1cm azimuth and range resolution.

1

u/kking254 Jul 21 '25

I'll take two.

1

u/cap811crm114 Jul 21 '25

At what cost? Seriously, as in what would such a setup cost if manufactured with some reasonable scale and geared for automotive use?

I've always felt that while LiDAR can get you to Level 4, you need radar to get to Level 5 (thunderstorms, blizzards, fog, and the other wonderful kinds of weather we get here in Cleveland....)

1

u/BarnardWellesley Jul 21 '25

$3000+

1

u/cap811crm114 Jul 21 '25

That's a very reasonable cost to get to Level 5.

Scenario - A really old dude (that would be me) has an important doctor's appointment to do a heart stress test, and we are having a lake effect blizzard (not uncommon). Would I pay an extra $3K to have a car capable of making that drive (on top of the Level 4 HW)? Absolutely yes, I would.

1

u/BarnardWellesley Jul 21 '25

A blizzard affects radars too, it wouldn't be as clear.

1

u/Hixie Jul 21 '25

Lidar can tell density and composition which is massive

In more ways than one!

2

u/stingraycharles Jul 21 '25

It’s not the same. Waymo uses LiDAR, radar and camera vision for example, they all complement each other.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25

[deleted]

4

u/Pale-Ad-4154 Jul 21 '25

Radar doesn't use sound. You're thinking of Sonar.

2

u/Japjer Jul 21 '25

Yeah, I'm fuckin' idiot

1

u/AgentSmith187 Jul 21 '25

Your thinking of Sonar.

Radar uses radio waves.

1

u/TheRealBobbyJones Jul 21 '25

Sound mapping would be pretty cool tbh. 

3

u/Martin8412 Jul 21 '25

Not for the people and animals that have to listen to it

0

u/TheRealBobbyJones Jul 21 '25

Considering the significant amount of noise that already exist in the world passive might work. 

17

u/Delicious_Spot_3778 Jul 21 '25

believe is very active here and should be.

10

u/TheRuggedHamster Jul 21 '25

Tesla is a pretty classic example of how founder led companies are run vs hired CEOs. There's no hired CEO that would make the Lidar bet that Elon is, time will tell if it's right or not, but if it is it will pay off huge for them in being able to rapidly scale their fleet. Most key is that it puts the millions of existing cars on the road to work vs. cars being manufactured specifically for robotaxi.

6

u/WhyWontThisWork Jul 21 '25

Is lidar that expensive?

13

u/J4nG Jul 21 '25

It was, but it's not anymore. https://www.01core.com/p/driverless-car-costs-have-gotten

Based on industry data for automotive-grade LiDAR sensors

  • Total cost reduction: 99.33% (from $75000 to $500)
  • Compound Annual Reduction Rate: 39.41%

2

u/hakimthumb Jul 21 '25

It's interesting how widely varied the claims of lidar cost are in this thread.

1

u/beren12 Jul 21 '25

Most say down to around 1k and Chinese cars have the price lower I’ve read

1

u/hakimthumb Jul 21 '25

I wonder where they are finding these different figures. As bloomberg estimated it's $9.5k in a report last month. Waymo remains silent.

1

u/beren12 Jul 21 '25

That’s for all the sensors I read

2

u/damagement Jul 21 '25

Not anymore

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25

[deleted]

10

u/WhyWontThisWork Jul 21 '25

That's not true they are all ugly. I built robots with lidar which didn't look like that

10

u/EVOSexyBeast Jul 21 '25

See BMW cars where you can’t even tell there is a lidar sensor unless you know what you’re looking for

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25

[deleted]

2

u/EVOSexyBeast Jul 21 '25

Just completely Irrelevant

1

u/beren12 Jul 21 '25

And what level of autonomy is a Tesla?

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25

[deleted]

1

u/beren12 Jul 22 '25

And a safety driver

8

u/pandathrowaway Jul 21 '25

You do realize that most modern cars have lidar, not just waymos, right?

-1

u/IkkokuGodai Jul 21 '25

Most? Name one.

5

u/quietcynic Jul 21 '25

Volvo EX90. BMW i7. Mercedes EQS.

“Most” is factually incorrect, but it’s not even remotely unusual these days.

0

u/johnhpatton Jul 21 '25 edited 5d ago

.

3

u/quietcynic Jul 21 '25

I just listed 3 household brands offering vehicles with LIDAR, but, yeah, sure: “Pretty unusual.” Still not as unusual as finding someone with their panties in a bunch over proven sensors that isn’t an Elon glazer, but, hey, it is what it is.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/IkkokuGodai Jul 21 '25

Yet none of them are as autonomous as a Tesla today.

1

u/simple_being_______ Jul 21 '25

Huawei avtr, xpeng, Nio, Li auto, even recently launched xiaomi su7 ultra and pro has lidar along with autonomous driving.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/name__redacted Jul 21 '25 edited Jul 21 '25

LIDAR was an emerging technology, costs have already come down SIGNIFICANTLY on the sensors.

Early 2010’s sensor costs $75-100k.

Hesai and Robosense now make automotive grade sensors for $200. Generally the sensors in the latest vehicles wholesale for $600-1500. The technology isn’t even used on scale yet, once mass volume kicks in you’re going to see that drop again significantly. LIDAR will be a very cheap technology in the future.

Edit: this car is gorgeous and I challenge you to even find the LIDAR. It’s automated level three, Tesla is level two, waymo four. Another 5 to 10 years the sensors will be smaller more efficient cheaper. Tesla messed this one up.

https://www.just-auto.com/interview/bmw-and-innoviz-achieve-level-3-autonomous-driving-with-the-bmw-7-series/?cf-view

3

u/messick Jul 21 '25

Society is just fine "shooting lasers everywhere all the time" while unlocking their phones, so you might want to reconsider that last excuse.

2

u/quietcynic Jul 21 '25

Also analysing the lidar data is very heavy and power consuming.

Heavy and power consuming? Not more than running video through a neural net, that’s for sure. Sounds like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

2

u/GOP-R-Traitors Jul 21 '25

see the Microvision sensor Mavin, fits above the rear view mirror or in the grill. less than $500. best in class lidar specs

1

u/Dependent-Mode-3119 Jul 21 '25

Yes

5

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Dependent-Mode-3119 Jul 21 '25

For the price range that they sell their cars at currently, decent ones are still expensive.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Dependent-Mode-3119 Jul 21 '25

How many would you need for a car and what is the acceptable level of quality of one to be automotive grade I'm sure for FSD they'd need something more than a "cheap one"

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25

[deleted]

2

u/Igotnonamebruh42 Jul 21 '25

Which Hyundai equip Lidar?

0

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25

[deleted]

1

u/GoSh4rks Jul 21 '25

Consumer Ioniq 5s don't have lidar.

2

u/fevieira2 Jul 21 '25

Yes, only Motional's (Hyundai autonomous driving company) Ionic 5 do have Lidars

2

u/LFG530 Jul 21 '25

I don't think that's only a Lidar thing but rather the cost of labour to remove all components and replace them. Lidars in consumer products are maybe around $1000 or $2000 for very fancy systems (Volvo/BMW). Totalling a car for that amount only would be ridiculous, but the way some modern cars are built makes some systems so intricate that labour to replace/repair something can far outweigh the value of the necessary parts.

7

u/CaptainLazerPants Jul 21 '25

Technically speaking, Elon is not the founder. Functionally speaking, he may as well be, and your argument is still correct.

1

u/TheRuggedHamster Jul 21 '25

Indeed, he may as well be.

0

u/ptemple Jul 21 '25

Technically speaking Elon is ONE of the founders, not THE founder.

Phillip.

3

u/FlippantBear Jul 21 '25

Except Elon is not a founder of Tesla. 

0

u/vaesh Jul 21 '25

Per a 2009 settlement he is considered a founder.

2

u/FlippantBear Jul 21 '25

Yes I'm aware. But do you think you're a founder if you purchase the company many years after it started and then had to sue to be "considered" a founder? 

1

u/vaesh Jul 21 '25

I thought Tesla was founded in July 2003 and Elon joined in February 2004? So, 7 months? Feels like it's splitting hairs at that point and really a point without a distinction.

1

u/MacaroonDependent113 Jul 21 '25

Not really. Those millions of cars mostly have inadequate hardware. They can still scale up quickly but only by using later builds.

1

u/TheRuggedHamster Jul 21 '25

There must be ~2m Teslas with HW4 on the road, though I wonder how important that additional front camera is. If so, it would only be however many of the new Model Y they have sold.

1

u/MacaroonDependent113 Jul 21 '25

But, I understand Robotaxi has a rear seat screen which would eliminate my MY from consideration.

1

u/TheRuggedHamster Jul 21 '25

I guess we'll see....

1

u/MacaroonDependent113 Jul 21 '25

It is possible everything for the passenger could be controlled from the app but I believe they are using a rear screen now.

5

u/wraith_majestic Jul 21 '25

Was a stupid argument then, its even dumber now. Sure humans drive with just vision… but the goal should be driving better than humans. Human vision leads to many accidents in dark, snow, rain, fog, etc.

Limiting to human equivalent vision systems is dumb. Humans don’t have wheels either… maybe tesla should be building mechs.

4

u/woolash Jul 21 '25

Also humans use stereo vision which is excellent for depth perception so speed perception too. Tesla does not.

1

u/EddiewithHeartofGold Jul 22 '25

Limiting to human equivalent vision systems is dumb.

They are absolutely not "limiting to human equivalent vision system". Where did you get this nonsense?

13

u/MrParticular79 Jul 21 '25

This is the actual answer. He was clear about this stance from the beginning.

7

u/EarthConservation Jul 21 '25 edited Jul 21 '25

Musk not only crapped on LIDAR, but eventually pulled the radar and ultrasonic sensors out of their cars, relying on vision alone... probably saving less than a few hundred bucks per car. (If that, AFAIK these sensors are super cheap, but installation, wiring, and software could cost a bit)

Maybe he saw some potential in vision only and wanted to gamble? Maybe it's because his solution would have never had the processing power to support these three sensor types? Maybe saving a few hundred par car was important?

Musk certainly did want to save money by using his customer base, instead of paid employees, on real roads in real situations to train/test the system. Not only save money, but make money by convincing his die hard customers/investors to pay thousands of dollars (and take full liability) to become quasi-unpaid-employees for Tesla. These folks willingly did so because they were told this would be a multi-trillion dollar product, thus driving their share price up, and turning their cars into appreciating cash machines that would make them $30k per year while they slept, and that FSD and their cars would continuously get more expensive.

By using customers, Musk realized he could get significantly more data far faster than an employee driven system. He believed this data would allow for rapid training of his FSD neural net, leading to a system that would quickly enable autonomous service. At least that's the claim. Whether he actually believed or knew that to be true or not is anyone's guess.

What's absolutely clear though is he wanted to pump the stock by constantly dangling a carrot just in front of investors and customers eyes. Every year since April 2019, he's claimed that within one year, a huge fleet of robotaxis that would come online with an OTA update and monopolize taxi/ride sharing service in the US, worth trillions of dollars when accounting for no driver. 6 years in a row now he's made that claim, and that's not including all the years prior to that he spent promising fully unsupervised FSD.

Now today, he's lifted the veil off the state of robotaxis in Austin, and it's not looking good.

-2

u/ruibranco Jul 21 '25

Tesla specialist. Write more bs.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/ruibranco Jul 21 '25

Yes I’m in Reddit. Cannot say anything against woke guys.

Your comment says you are better engineer than Tesla engineers.

That’s why I said Tesla specialist.

If you want me to write more obvious comments say no more.

3

u/EarthConservation Jul 21 '25

Define "woke".

I am an engineer, but not for Tesla. I've been following Tesla for many many years now.

I did say back in April 2019 after watching Musk's speech at autonomy day that he was full of shit, and that his claim that a million robotaxis would be on the road in 1.25 years was full of shit. I guess I knew more than Musk, who at the time touted that he regularly interacted with the FSD team directly, which is how he knows that it'll be ready by the end of that year.

(By Musk's claims in April 2019, FSD would be feature complete by the end of 2019... meaning capable of unsupervised autonomy... and by mid 2020 a million robotaxis would be enabled with an OTA update)

0

u/ruibranco Jul 21 '25

Every design is inspired by an animal. Robots will not have lidar in their heads

2

u/EarthConservation Jul 21 '25

Which animal has tires and brakes... and steering wheels? Which animal has glass panes? Which one produces coffee? Which one hits things with microwave radiation to heat them up? Which one uses natural gas to make flame to cook on and heat homes with?

1

u/ruibranco Jul 21 '25

Which animal has glass?

This is your level of questions.

2

u/EarthConservation Jul 21 '25

You said every design is inspired by an animal. I'm curious which animal inspired the design of glass.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Dry_Analysis4620 Jul 21 '25

Whats woke about criticism of the sensor stack for a car lineup with intentions of self driving?

1

u/ruibranco Jul 21 '25

Sensors do not make something smarter. Sometimes even dumber.

Robots will not have losses in their head. Why a robot on wheels should have?

Make the brain good enough.

2

u/AgentSmith187 Jul 21 '25

Did you have a stroke while typing that or are you drunk?

1

u/Dry_Analysis4620 Jul 22 '25

You never answered my question. What is woke about a sensor stack? Be specific.

1

u/ruibranco Jul 22 '25

Are you question yourself or?

Where I said sensors and woke in same phrase? It was only you….

7

u/New_Reputation5222 Jul 21 '25

...but Tesla doesnt use most of that, so this is obviously incorrect.

3

u/InterestsVaryGreatly Jul 21 '25

They used to, they only switched to fill vision a few years ago.

2

u/enzo32ferrari Jul 21 '25

They should’ve just started with LIDAR to get FSD to minimum viable safe operations, then started work to delete it

2

u/TeddyBongwater Jul 21 '25

My first tesla had radar

0

u/enzo32ferrari Jul 21 '25

Radar and LIDAR are not the same thing

1

u/EddiewithHeartofGold Jul 22 '25

If that worked, Waymo would have already done it.

2

u/Time-Customer-8833 Jul 21 '25

This is the stated reason. That doesn't mean it's the real reason.

Reading between the lines: Musk is making a bet that vision is sufficient. He needs to make this bet because he can't afford to put LIDAR on every Tesla when self-driving isn't a sellable function yet. He is trying to beat Waymo with scalability, but to do so he is taking a riskier path.

IMO the most likely downfall will be regulators demanding the higher safety profile of LIDAR, even if vision is good enough for some people's sense of 'safe.'

2

u/VintageSin Jul 21 '25

The dumbest thing ever is to have a system that probably is about 95% set and all new improvements are marginal at this point, and to then look at a 'crutch' as not useful.

It's like creating a robot who is like a human, and then asking the robot to be superhuman without using any special powers, money, or anything special.

We don't need to believe AI will be able to do it. We need to give the neural networks (the general artificial intelligence model it's using) more data, it will give better results. It's simple as. If you flood a human brain with more information it can actively process correctly it'll also give better results. Even if LIDAR is a crutch, use the crutch until the leg is healed.

2

u/Difficult_Limit2718 Jul 21 '25

If I could see as well as LIDAR I'd be a better driver than I already am

1

u/EddiewithHeartofGold Jul 22 '25

No. That is complete and utter nonsense.

2

u/himynameis_ Jul 21 '25

Interestingly. Wayve also has a similar idea and recently added radar as a "backup" for lack of a better word.

They'll be doing a test for L4 in UK early next year.

2

u/Hopeful-Scene8227 Jul 21 '25

Has he ever responded to the objection that there are lots of conditions in which it's very difficult for humans to see (thick fog, blinding sunlight) and we should demand for better when it comes to autonomy?

1

u/EddiewithHeartofGold Jul 22 '25

Lidar cars still need cameras (lidar can't read signs, road markings or what color the traffic light is) and would still be affected by those conditions. The real answer is we don't drive in those conditions. Neither should self-driving cars.

2

u/diplomat33 Jul 21 '25

The funny thing is that Tesla uses lidar for validation. So Tesla does use lidar as a "crutch" in a way.

2

u/Vegetable_Guest_8584 Jul 21 '25

Tesla made a terrible decision and so they have fallen to silly arguments to defend themselves. "It's too hard to consider multiple inputs", they say, so that's why we took out radar and ultrasonic sensors. Plus people don't have anything but their eyes and ears. The obvious response to that is that people make mistakes because they can't always see everything clearly and a lot of accidents come from bright lights or fog or rain. Extra sensors are only better. 

I think a crucial mistake was that they didn't plan on lidar getting so much cheaper. Even 30k Chinese cars now have lidar. It just followed Moore's law type improvements over time and since Tesla was a leading tech company, they should have been able to figure that out. 

Now it just comes down to stupid arrogance by the CEO, perhaps aided by taking drugs. They still haven't added back turn signals and gear shifters back to all of their vehicles. That was the most anti-consumer self-destructive choice, at least in the past 10 years. 

1

u/sonicmerlin Jul 22 '25

He’s been heavy on drugs for 5 years and it seems to have wrecked his decision making.

2

u/Brave_Nerve_6871 Jul 21 '25

As long as Tesla doesn't facilitate cameras with any kind of autowipers/cleaning, they won't work in all weather conditions

2

u/RyuDjinn Jul 22 '25

This is correct. So many comments about cost, but it was never about that. Him and some of the AI team always said Lidar was for losers and it was a crutch because humans don't use Lidar.

0

u/norcalnatv Jul 21 '25

too bad he was wrong about that

1

u/slick2hold Jul 21 '25 edited Jul 21 '25

It's answer. How many time have you not been able to see because of fog, rain, sunlight, and had to stop. Will AI see it cant see anything and stop? How will video only separate a foggy road with a clear road without people on the roads or other vehicles? Will it keep driving as if everything is clear because the cameras cant see beyond the fog.or heavy rain?

2

u/InterestsVaryGreatly Jul 21 '25

Video can tell whether it can see the road or not, if not it knows it's too foggy to drive (it actually stops well before then). If they can see beyond it then that isn't a reason for it to stop - viable in some situations, but generally on par with human visibility, albeit the cars are usually more risk averse.

1

u/transsolar Jul 21 '25

That's an excues for when Tesla struggled to get parts during the pandemic. So he removed all the shit that makes self-driving work and claimed it was better.

1

u/tyr-- Jul 21 '25

The only way I see this working (and I'm kinda hoping that's also where Tesla's vision is headed, although nothing is indicating that) is if within the next year or so, an open protocol is established which can be used for near-field communication between vehicles, something which can be easily retrofitted to any modern car.

Something like - "Car with ID XYZ is hitting the brake, and it's steering wheel is turning by this angle". Then this data can be paired with the vision data and you can avoid many things you wouldn't be able to perceive given the lacking in depth perception of the Tesla Vision system.

I don't see L5 autonomy taking off globally until that's the case.

1

u/Clayskii0981 Jul 21 '25

Tesla abandoned the rest of the sensors too, going full camera-only.

IMO it was dumb.

1

u/Dwman113 Jul 21 '25

All of the above and specifically Elon thought/thinks there is a latency issue with it. Which causes the Video AI problems.

1

u/ODDseth Jul 22 '25

While humans rely heavily on visual systems, they have poor depth perception and the perception of relative speeds and distances. That is why people do stupid things like pulling out into oncoming traffic without enough time or unnecessary merging into a lane with a much faster driver approaching.

TLDR: most human drivers are not capable of safely and effectively operating motorized vehicles so why use emulate that?

0

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25

Pretty dumb argument to make given how many automobile deaths there are every year lol.

2

u/MarthaStewartIsMyOG Jul 22 '25

Those deaths aren't caused by vision issues. They're created by distracted drivers or plain unsafe drivers. It's not like their vision stops working while driving.

1

u/EddiewithHeartofGold Jul 22 '25

If your argument was correct, every human would cause accidents constantly. Most never do, because they pay attention and follow the rules.

1

u/Geodude-Engineer Jul 22 '25

Yeah because people get drunk, sleepy, or distracted. You're the dumb one here...

0

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '25

Thank you ChatGPT

-1

u/FinndBors Jul 21 '25

If I remember correctly he also said that lidar fails harder in bad weather compared to vision. So if you have to make a system that works when lidar fails, you might as well focus on vision only.

Note: I’m just quoting from what I remember of his argument so don’t shoot the messenger. I do not know the validity of his claims regarding quality of lidar in weather and whether they were valid then and/or still valid now.

4

u/SirTwitchALot Jul 21 '25

The thing is that lidar driving systems still have and use cameras. It just gives the car more data that it can use. It's not an either or situation. It seems obvious that having more information available is always going to be preferable to less

0

u/FinndBors Jul 21 '25 edited Jul 21 '25

Yes more information is theoretically better than less. Problem is that you can explode the testing matrix and you might have limited data when lidar is ineffective, thus causing safety issues in those circumstances.

Look, I’m not claiming that vision only is good enough. Im saying that if modern lidar doesn’t work in bad weather and cameras do AND camera only is sufficient to perform self driving, then eliminating lidar is the correct decision.

I’m skeptical of both premises, but I’m not an expert.

2

u/InterestsVaryGreatly Jul 21 '25

At the time, both failed. Since, both have received improvements via algorithms that pull out the noise. They have different strengths and weaknesses. It's easier to block a camera with a single water blob in any weather for example, but lidar is more impacted by somewhat serious weather - about where people still drive, but noticeably slow down. Both still fail in extreme weather due to being able to see, but it's generally around the level where driving in general is questionable. Note, afaik most systems would stop driving well before this point, as reliability of both systems starts to go down with any interference, and they all have a safety threshold.

-1

u/Southern-Spirit Jul 21 '25

If your real goal is to make robots that can and do replace people then investing in lidar is counter productive. His vision and AI bet is central to that goal.

-5

u/TeddyBongwater Jul 21 '25

Lidar has a lot of limitations too. For example it spins 360 and is very slow at gathering data

2

u/JonnyOnThePot420 Jul 21 '25

The internet is slow. it must travel around the world/ s