Elon Musk's Hefty Anti-Lider Gamble Undermines Tesla's Chances of Survival Getty Readers have asked me to expand. <div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = " A self-driving car-free autonomous car, should it have LIDAR or not? My remarks about Tesla's Investor Autonomy Day where I had stated Elon Musk determined and antagonistic threw the giant to strengthen his attitude by asking for the use of LIDAR (a type of sensor using light and radar). In short, Musk has unequivocally become the defacto leader of camp anti-LIDAR . Remember that almost all other driverless car manufacturers incorporate the use of LIDAR in their vision systems., technology companies that already make sensors or who develop LIDAR devices have flourished recently and make up over 80 such innovative companies (per SAEs Automotive Engineering magazine indika ), and has unexpectedly attracted VC / PE money . You have a giant trumpet bleating to the hills that LIDAR is banned, taking an open and highly visible anti-LIDAR position, and then just about everyone else on LIDAR for autonomous cars. And although sometimes a contrarian may be right, they are often so likely to be wrong, perhaps more so . It has now become an undeniably great player of Musk and a humongous effort that could ultimately undermine Tesla's survival opportunities, which I will explain here. How did we get here? Before his extremely violent anti-LIDAR proclamation, Musk had generally been a little more subdued by his position (muted is a relative term). Let's go back in time to eons ago, early 2018, maybe considered hundreds of years now past though only about a year ago, and realize that he had claimed that LIDAR was too expensive, big, and he looked at it as a kind of crutch, even though he had admitted : "Maybe I'm wrong, and I will look like a stupid one. But I'm pretty sure I'm not." The April 22, 2019 (Tesla's Investor Autonomy Day), the world seemed to be quite different, in the form of Elon's opinion on LIDAR, we become less, reserved and more adamant, here's what he proclaimed : "LIDAR is a Anyone who trusts LIDAR is doomed! ” Mildly, one could claim to have chosen to double his efforts. Previously, he had secured only one tad, and that gave the possibility that LIDAR could be of value. Now he has become the anti-LIDAR disclaimer, using the speaker to declare LIDAR as zero and empty. Worse still, his claims claim that others who use or invest in LIDAR for autonomous cars are bad at doing so, probably wasting money, time, energy, and their spirits on one (he suggests) condemned technology. Musk often takes the air out of a room, but this was particularly rough so that others in the autonomous automotive industry could gasp, but given the frequently used hyperbolic originating from Tesla and Musk, was not a surprise to those who were already
What is LIDAR
To clarify, LIDAR has been the bulky cap that you have undoubtedly seen sitting on the top of autonomous cars .
It shoots out beams, the light beams jump off nearby objects, and the remaining beams are then collected by the LIDAR unit. This is related to radar and enables the measurement of distances to objects within the range of the LIDAR device being used. The AI system in the autonomous car then interprets the collected data to try to find out which objects are nearby, along with the objects' shapes, their amount of movement over time, direction or direction, etc.
When Most Autonomous Automakers Started to develop driverless cars they used to include LIDAR units in their overall AI system for the cars. Musk is right on the idea that the LIDAR units were previously expensive and bulky, but it's a bit like living in the past since advances in technology have brought costs down remarkably and sizes are remarkably smaller too. In fact, so much so that many of the driverless cars now have several LIDAR devices, and you can barely notice them.
It is much more difficult these days to strengthen the anti-LIDAR argument with the claims of the mass of LIDAR devices and also the cost of LIDAR devices. Doing so is one of those who waving their hands, kind of arguments that no longer hold water, but some continue to cling to it anyway. Let us put aside the part of the argument that is torn and less relevant.
Instead, think of an ongoing technical argument going on in the halls of autonomous car manufacturers and scientists on the benefits of LIDAR versus cameras and anti-LIDAR camps who want to claim that the cameras are sufficient for themselves and that LIDAR is not needed.
At least someone says that since people only use their eyes when they are driving and cannot shoot light rays from their heads, it may mean that cameras -Enone is sufficient and that LIDAR is unnecessary (the classic retort is that humans only have bones, so presumably that cars should have bones instead of wheels, and point out that just imitating human functions is not as much of a valid argument per se). [1[ads1]9659004] What only undermines the key point of cameras is just that almost everyone seems to agree that using radar is an important partner for using cameras. Even Musk allowed this to be the case for Tesla and actually Tesla cars are equipped with radar. If so, there will be a debate about presumably using conventional radar versus LIDAR, since the door is already open to agree that radar of any kind is justified, rather than being concerned with LIDAR versus the camera's dialogue. [19659004] As we delve deeper into the criminal debate, the usual answer from camera-only camp is that conventional radar is just a temporary bridge, and when the cameras are good enough, it doesn't seem to be the radar needed or will be considered as a simple convenience of accessibility. They often throw in their points the idea that radar is cheaper than LIDAR and less bulky, but as I have already mentioned here, these offman comments will not stand the time test.
Why this anti-LIDAR is a fierce gamble
I argue that these back and forth arguments lack some pretty fateful aspects that have an even greater emphasis on the future of autonomous cars and especially the driverless cars in anti-idols
When an autonomous car enters into an accident which mark my words will happen, you can be further assured that lawsuits will be filed . I have previously described that one of the main elements of such litigation would be what made the autonomous automaker as part of the design, building and fielding of their self-propelled car ] and especially how did they attempt to ensure safety and reliability.
For Tesla, if they are being pressured by a lawsuit, they must defend their sentence for not using LIDAR. As you can imagine, Tesla will be on a shaky basis if it is shown that essentially all other autonomous cars use LIDAR. The burden of explaining and justifying the lack of LIDAR at Tesla will be steep.
And more damming I have many times pointed out that Musk's claim that the cost of LIDAR is "expensive" will put Tesla in even milder waters, leading to a cost-related problem.
Provided that people have died in the car accident, the question will be pointed out what the cost of a LIDAR unit was at that time and its inclusion in a driverless car, against the cost of human life lost. Traditional car manufacturers know at the hard drive that juries and judges are taking a weak view on issues involving cutting corners attributable to a less secure or less reliable vehicle (remember the famous Pinto case and clamor over the cost of security against the cost of human life).
The Tesla position will probably be that the addition of LIDAR would not have substantially avoided the car accident and loss of life, but this will be difficult to show since the theoretical use of LIDAR will increase the security odds incrementally, provided it is used wisely, and then There is another part of Tesla uphill, to avoid being summed up for their lack of LIDAR.
Nor can they argue that they did not know about LIDAR or were in any way unaware of it, which is clearly not the case, including their self-proclaimed anti-LIDAR rhetoric acting as their own admission that they knew about LIDAR and made a conscious decision
Conclusion
Although Musk was tomorrow to change and choose to switch to the LIDAR camp, Tesla has repeatedly said that Tesla cars already have required hardware for autonomous capabilities. This means that Tesla would be in place to utilize Tesla with LIDAR after they had retrofitted them all, a very costly and logistically inconceivable trial, if they had an epiphany and complete change of LIDAR.
In short, Tesla is now painted in a tight corner.
They can't climb easily out of the anti-LIDAR mode in the LIDAR adopters group, and when it comes time to defend in court, it will be easier to explain juries and judges that Tesla omitted something that everyone others use, and as it may have helped avoid the accident and deaths, compared to Tesla's attempt to argue that they were doing well without LIDAR (plus mired in explaining why they probably scrimped at the expense, which meant a kind of cost-versus-human life calculator was involved).
If such a case happens and goes against Tesla, or if it only raises unpleasant questions about the safety of Tesla cars in the absence of h using LIDAR, it can touch public opinion on driverless cars missing in LIDAR and even spark controllers for action.
Anyway, it is quite interesting that Musk and Tesla are It is already in the process of making and rolling the dice.
">
An autonomous driverless autonomous car, should it have LIDAR or not? That is the question.
Getty
Readers have asked me to increase my remarks about Tesla's Investor Autonomy Day, where I had particular Elon Musk determined and antagonistically knocked down the rubber chair to strengthen his attitude by asking for the use of LIDAR a type of sensor using light and radar. In fact, he threw the inflatable straight into the rest of the autonomous automotive industry and those who make the units.
In short, Musk has undoubtedly become the defacto leader of camp anti-LIDAR.
Keep in mind that almost all other driverless car manufacturers incorporate the use of LIDAR into their vision systems, and technology companies already producing sensors or developing LIDAR devices, recently flourished, which make up over 80 such innovative companies (per SAE's Automotive Engineering magazine indication), and have unexpectedly attracted VC / PE money easily.
I have e A giant trumpet that bleeds in the hills that LIDAR is verbatim takes an open and highly visible anti-LIDAR position, and then only all other LIDARs for autonomous cars apply. And although sometimes a contrarian can be right, they are often as likely to be wrong, perhaps more.
It has now become an undoubtedly significant player of Musk and a humongous effort that could ultimately undermine Tesla's survival opportunities, which I will explain here.
How did we get here?
Before his extremely violent anti-LIDAR proclamation, Musk had generally been a little more subdued by his position (muffled is a relative term).
Let's go back in time to eons ago, early 2018, maybe considered hundreds of years now past though only about a year ago, and realize that he had claimed that LIDAR was too expensive, big and he looked at it as some kind of crutch, though he had also admitted: "Maybe I'm wrong, and I will look like a stupid one. But I'm pretty sure I'm not."
April 22, 2019 (Teslas Investor Autonomy Day) The world seemed to be quite different, compared to Elon's opinion of LIDAR, we become less, reserved and more adamant, here's what he proclaimed: "LIDAR is an idiot of honor. Everyone who trusts LIDAR is doomed. ! "
Mildly one could claim to have chosen to double his efforts.
Previously, he had secured only one tad, and that gave the possibility that LIDAR could be of value. Now he has become the anti-LIDAR disclaimer, using the speaker to declare LIDAR as zero and empty. Worse still, his claims claim that others who use or invest in LIDAR for autonomous cars are bad at doing so, probably wasting money, time, energy, and their spirits on one (he suggests) condemned technology.
Musk often takes the air out of a room, but this was particularly rough so that others in the autonomous automotive industry could gasp, but given the frequently used hyperbolic originating from Tesla and Musk, it was not a surprise to those who already was accustomed to his times
What is LIDAR
To clarify, LIDAR has been the bulky hood that you no doubt have seen on top of autonomous cars.
It shoots out light rays, the light beams bounce off nearby objects, the remaining beams are then collected by the LIDAR unit. This is related to radar and enables the measurement of distances to objects within the range of the LIDAR device being used. The AI system in the autonomous car then interprets the collected data to try to find out which objects are nearby, along with the shapes of the objects, their amount of movement over time, direction or direction, etc.
When Most Autonomous Car Manufacturers were started In developing driverless cars, they used to include LIDAR devices in their general AI system for the cars. Musk is right on the idea that the LIDAR units were previously expensive and bulky, but it's a bit like living in the past since advances in technology have brought costs down remarkably and sizes are remarkably smaller too. In fact, so much so that many of the driverless cars now have several LIDAR devices, and you can barely notice them.
It is much more difficult these days to strengthen the anti-LIDAR argument with the claims of the mass of LIDAR devices and also the cost of LIDAR devices. Doing so is one of those who waving their hands, kind of arguments that no longer hold water, but some continue to cling to it anyway. Let us put aside the part of the argument that is torn and less relevant.
Instead, think of an ongoing technical argument going on in the halls of autonomous car manufacturers and scientists on the benefits of LIDAR versus cameras and anti-LIDAR camps who want to claim that the cameras are sufficient for themselves and that LIDAR is not needed.
At least someone says that since people only use their eyes when they are driving and cannot shoot light rays from their heads, it may mean that cameras -Enone is sufficient and that LIDAR is unnecessary (the classic retort is that humans only have bones, so presumably that cars should have bones instead of wheels, and point out that just imitating human functions is not as much of a valid argument per se). [19659004] What only undermines the key point of cameras is just that almost everyone seems to agree that using radar is an important partner for using cameras. Even Musk allowed this to be the case for Tesla, and actually Tesla cars are equipped with radar. If so, there will be a debate about presumably using conventional radar versus LIDAR, since the door is already open to agree that radar of any kind is justified, rather than being concerned with LIDAR versus the camera's dialogue. [19659004] As we delve deeper into the criminal debate, the usual answer from camera-only camp is that conventional radar is just a temporary bridge, and when the cameras are good enough, it doesn't seem to be the radar needed or will be considered as a simple convenience of accessibility. They often throw in their points the idea that radar is cheaper than LIDAR and less bulky, but as I have already mentioned here, these offman comments will not stand the time test.
Why this anti-LIDAR is a fierce gamble
I argue that these back and forth arguments lack some pretty fateful aspects that have an even greater emphasis on the future of autonomous cars and especially the driverless cars in anti-LIDAR
When an autonomous car enters an accident, which brand my words will happen, you can be further assured that lawsuits will be filed. I have previously described that one of the most important elements of such litigation will be what made the autonomous automaker as part of the design, construction and fielding of their self-propelled car, and in particular how they attempted to ensure safety and reliability.
For Tesla, if they are being pressured by a lawsuit, they must defend themselves in court's decision not to use LIDAR. As you can imagine, Tesla will be on a shaky basis if it is shown that essentially all other autonomous cars use LIDAR. The burden of explaining and justifying the lack of LIDAR at Tesla is going to be steep.
And more damming I have often pointed out that Musk's claim that the cost of LIDAR is "animal" will put Tesla into Self-obscure waters, which lead to a cost issue.
Provided that people have died in the car accident, the question will be pointed out as to what cost a LIDAR unit at that time, and that it was incorporated into a car without a driver, against the cost of human life lost. Traditional car manufacturers know at the hard drive that juries and judges are taking a weak view on issues involving cutting corners attributable to a less secure or less reliable vehicle (remember the famous Pinto case and clamor over the cost of security against the cost of human life).
The Tesla position will probably be that the addition of LIDAR would not have substantially avoided the car accident and loss of life, but this will be difficult to show since the theoretical use of LIDAR will increase the security odds incrementally, provided it is used wisely, and then There is another part of Tesla uphill, to avoid being summed up for their lack of LIDAR.
Nor can they argue that they did not know about LIDAR or were in any way unaware of it, which is clearly not the case, including their self-proclaimed anti-LIDAR rhetoric acting as their own admission that they knew about LIDAR and made a conscious decisi
Conclusion
Although Musk was tomorrow to change and choose to switch to the LIDAR camp, Tesla has repeatedly stated that the Tesla cars already have it necessary hardware for autonomous capabilities. This means that Tesla would be in place to utilize Tesla with LIDAR after they had retrofitted them all, a very costly and logistically inconceivable trial, if they had an epiphany and complete change of LIDAR.
In short, Tesla is now painted in a tight corner.
They can't climb easily out of the anti-LIDAR mode in the LIDAR adopters group, and when it comes time to defend in court, it will be easier to explain juries and judges that Tesla omitted something that everyone others use, and as it may have helped avoid the accident and deaths, compared to Tesla's attempt to argue that they were doing well without LIDAR (plus mired in explaining why they probably scrimped at the expense, which meant a kind of cost-versus-human life calculator was involved).
If such a case happens and goes against Tesla, or if it only raises unpleasant questions about the safety of Tesla cars in the absence of h using LIDAR, it may touch public opinion on driverless cars missing in LIDAR and to and with spark controls for action.
Anyway, it's quite interesting a game like Musk and Tesla stock, and the dice are already on the way. 19659075]
