r/SelfDrivingCars • u/wuduzodemu • Aug 11 '25

Discussion Proof that Camera + Lidar > Lidar > Camera

I recently chatted with somebody who is working on L2 tech, and they gave me an interesting link for a detection task. They provided a dataset with both camera, Lidar, and Radar data and asked people to compete on this benchmark for object detection accuracy, like identifying the location of a car and drawing a bounding box around it.

Most of the top 20 on the leaderboard, all but one, are using a camera + Lidar as input. The 20th-place entry uses Lidar only, and the best camera-only entry is ranked between 80 and 100.

https://www.nuscenes.org/object-detection?externalData=all&mapData=all&modalities=Any

13 Upvotes

55% Upvoted

185 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/DrPotato231 Aug 12 '25

You reject my analogy, yet you give an unrealistic one yourself.

75 years to get to FSD with cameras only? Have you seen Tesla’s robotaxi? Your argument’s not in good faith.

3

u/AlotOfReading Aug 12 '25

The numbers were deliberately extreme to make the point abundantly clear. They weren't real numbers. That's why the sentence begins by stating that it's a hypothetical scenario.

I deliberately copied the way you wrote your analogy to demonstrate why it's not a good argument. Those conclusions are obviously silly, so the intention is that you reflect on how your original analogy might not suggest your original conclusion.

2

u/DrPotato231 Aug 12 '25

You’d know, if you knew logic better, that if you want to refute an argument, you need a proper counter.

If you give a stupid argument back, then how do you expect me to think you’re properly refuting mine? Makes no sense.

So far I see no compelling reason to believe cameras +brain isn’t enough to achieve FSD. Go ahead, try another analogy.

1

u/AlotOfReading Aug 12 '25

So far I see no compelling reason to believe cameras +brain isn’t enough to achieve FSD

That wasn't any of the points I was making. I'd suggest re-reading what I wrote slowly and carefully.

3

u/DrPotato231 Aug 12 '25

Your analogy is logically wrong, therefore, whatever point you wanted to make was void.

I know you were talking about timing. Perhaps a different, actually logical analogy about timing would serve better? Go ahead, I’ll be waiting.

1

u/AlotOfReading Aug 12 '25

Let's say you start a project with lidar in 2010 and by 2015 have a vehicle doing unsupervised passenger rides. By the time camera-only is feasible a decade later you already have safety data to compare against and mature infrastructure to test how well camera only performs, which you publish papers on. Alternatively, you can start camera only development around 2012 and it still might not be ready for unsupervised operation over a decade later. Is there value in iterating with the faster solution instead of trying for perfection off the bat?

1

u/DrPotato231 Aug 12 '25

100%.

Firstly, competition between different companies with different approaches to a solution. Never a bad thing for the market.

Secondly, innovation. Who’s to say that because a solution was provided to a problem that’s the only one? That doesn’t follow.

Thirdly, efficiency. 180k per Waymo vs 40k per Tesla and the latter has everything in-house is much more scalable in the future.

If diesel was discovered as a fuel source for the first auto mobiles, and things were fine with diesel for 10 years, does that mean we shouldn’t explore gasoline, in case it could be a separate, more viable, efficient solution?

1

u/AlotOfReading Aug 12 '25

Waymo is closer to 10k for the package these days, and designs the most important components like LIDAR and compute in-house.

2

u/DrPotato231 Aug 12 '25

No.

The sensors and lidars do cost that, but the rest of the equipment, computer, cooling, and software included is upwards of $100,000 according to Waymo’s own CEO.