BMW tests next-gen LiDAR to beat Tesla to Level 3 self-driving cars::Tesla’s autonomous vehicle tech has been perennially stuck at Level 2 self-driving, as BMW and other rivals try to leapfrog to Level 3.

  • tibi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tesla’s decision to only use cameras and no radar will byte them in the ass.

      • riodoro1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        This. That cocksucker has such ~a tiny dick~ fragile ego he makes huge decisions without any expertise simply because he says so. Thats how he built the whole “genius” thing around him. Reality of it is that he is an annoying dumbass who thinks he knows it all and anyone in the same room with more than one brain cell is immediately annoyed with him. But he has a lot of money so i guess LeTtEr X cOoL

        • NielsBohron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think you need to use two tildes on each side if you want it show up as a strike through like this

           ~~like this~~
          
    • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Currently they seem to be leading the race though even though the competition is using radar and lidar

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If buy leading the race you mean the only company to have an actual product available for purchase then yeah.

        But the reason they were able to get to market so quickly is because they don’t actually have any concerns about it being functional or safe. That’s a real boon to them because it helps them move quickly ahead of the competition that do care about those things.

        Of course one good argue that an unsafe self-driving system is in fact not a self-driving system and therefore they are not the first to market.

        • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, I mean leading the race as in having the most capable sefl driving system in existence which I believe is the case.

          I don’t know what you’re basing the claim on that it’s not functional and safe.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I am basing my claim on it not being functional and safe.

            I’m basing my claim on the fact that it drives into trucks. Since I don’t want to be driven into a truck by my car, I would consider that to be a failure state.

            Do some research.

            • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think anyone has ever claimed it’s flawless. After all it’s still in beta version. If you hit a truck it’s because the driver wasn’t paying attention.

              I still don’t know what you’re basing these claims on except your own opimion apparently. “It’s not safe” compared to what? As far as I know Tesla FSD has had less accidents per mile than an average driver.

              In the 2nd quarter, we recorded one crash for every 4.41 million miles driven in which drivers were using Autopilot technology (Autosteer and active safety features). For drivers who were not using Autopilot technology (no Autosteer and active safety features), we recorded one crash for every 1.2 million miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles.

              Source

              Perhaps you should do some more research?

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The average consumer would define self driving as “if my car crashes, my car should be sued”. Is that how it works with a tesla crash, who pays for that?

  • Shikadi@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate that the article opens with

    Just a decade ago, the concept of self-driving cars might have seemed like something out of a science fiction movie

    Ten years ago there was already a ton of competition in self driving car research. They were first legalized on the roads 10 years ago. Tesla autopilot (including it even though it was a scam) was sold 9 years ago. Google spun off its self driving car division as waymo in 2016.

    This feels like one of those “bruh Zelda ocarina of time came out 29 years ago, we old” memes

    • RustyPenguin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      “The route you selected contains a highway. Please purchase the Highway Driving Pack in addition to your City Driving Pack to reach your destination”

    • notatoad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Almost certainly.

      But self-driving also depends on up-to-date mapping data and continually improved algorithms for the autonomous systems to work properly. An ongoing cost to the customer makes the most sense for a service that has operating costs to the service provider.

      • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, does it? Presumably the idea (that Tesla had anyway) is to try and mimic what humans do, and we don’t need mapping data to drive “safely” (for a given value of safe). Of course, humans also get lost, but again, the GPS updates is basically free at this point for the mapping help humans need. (Garmin stopped charging yearly long ago, Open Maps and Google Maps and Wayze all are “free”).

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Only if they’re giving the hardware away with the car. Tesla is charging ~$15k upfront for FSD. It would be absurd to tack a monthly fee on top of that.

    • Bakachu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sample pricing for BMW self-driving add-on feature:

      98% accuracy in obstacle avoidance - $299/mo.
      85% accuracy in obstacle avoidance - $199/mo.
      75% accuracy in obstacle avoidance (lowest legal limit!) - $99/mo.

      disclaimer: BMW cannot guarantee 100% accuracy in accuracy rates

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Another possibility.

        Unlimited* crash avoidance instances - $299.99/mo

        10 crash avoidance instances - $199.99/mo

        5 crash avoidance instances - $99.99/mo

        *crash avoidance may be limited during peak hours and times of congestion. After 12 crash avoidance instances, feature may be disabled without notice due to abuse of the system. All sales are final and minimum 5 year contract required. Price may increase at any time without notice

  • nathanjaker@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    My understanding was that the challenge in making the next leap in self driving was not based in hardware (detecting objects with cameras vs LiDAR), but in software. As in, it isn’t as difficult to detect the presence of objects as it is to make consistent and safe decisions based on that information.

    • RealJoL@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But using LIDAR, you increase your data’s accuracy and dimensionality, giving you more options to play with. It probably won’t be a game changer, but it may be better than a camera only system.

      • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Gathering more data, and being able to process it seems obvious as a way forward. How much better is this “new” LIDAR?

        Edit: seems Tesla cars doesn’t even use LIDAR…

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not necessarily true. What you get is two separate things inputting raw data into a system that both need to be parsed. Sometimes, one won’t agree with the other and can cause issues with how the car thinks it should respond.

        Nobody has a fully working system at this point, so it’s premature to make claims about what hardware is and isn’t needed. It may very well be that LIDAR is a requirement, but until somebody figures it out, we’re all just speculating.

  • Ejh3k@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Self driving cars are great and all, but can we get someone seriously working on alternative fuels? EV is really pretty unsustainable. All the resources going to build batteries that are unrecycleable is a massive waste in my opinion. And the unless something drastic changes, the ranges that are needed for logistics and America aren’t going to ultimately fix anything.

    If they can create an alternative fuel that is significantly less polluting, or figure out how to make hydrogen less explody, the existing infrastructure worldwide of gas stations can still be efficiently used. And hopefully there will be a to retrofit existing vehicles to use this alternatives.

    • Fract@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, shouldn’t we be working on both? Just because they’re working on one, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re not working on the other.

  • Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think we should NOT allow self driving cars.

    > but but muh autopilot in planes

    No! Planes are inherently safer to fly than it is to drive cars. Planes have much more room and degree of freedom to maneuver. They are also monitored by air traffic control and the pilots are supposed to be highly trained and fit. Cars are restricted to one plane (heh) and any two bit yokel with stroke-diabeetus-fetal alcohol syndrome from Bumfuck Florida can get a license to drive a car. You can’t pull up or dive in a car more than once.

    > buh buh buh make every car automated

    You just reinvented the train.