[aidenn0]

This completely fails to address Musk's argument: that for a L5 car you need to be able to drive in inclement weather where LIDAR does not work reliably.

Musk may be right or wrong, but this article is a non-sequitur.

[DannyBee]

Musk has made a lot of arguments over the years. His argument was that lidar is a crutch because people do it without lidar.

Except people don't drive reliably in inclement weather at all, so you don't really want that as the gold standard.

Training a car to be as good as average people driving in the rain/snow would be horrible.

[threeseed]

Cameras don't work reliably in inclement weather either.

So what was Musk's point ?

[yo-scot-99]

there's 200-300k cars out there with just cameras + radar and their bet is the software catches up to the rhetoric. Adding lidar is next to impossible on the current fleet and adds to the cost if they start now. It is an early design bet which the coders now have to meet.

[alkonaut]

But no car sold yet (or in the coming decade) will have close to “full autonomy”. Not even close.

[macintux]

He’s been promising otherwise.

[alkonaut]

Hopefully no one bought a car hoping it will magically be “fully autonomous” in the future, given that no one knows whether it will even be possible with a research vehicle in 10 years

[microtherion]

If they weren't hoping that, it would seem odd for them to pay several thousand dollars for a "Full Self Driving" option.

[aidenn0]

I wasn't claiming Musk was right, just that the article is a non-sequitur