• AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Because that’s expensive and can be done with a camera.

          Expensive, as in probably less than $600? Compared to the $35000 cost of a tesla?

          (comparing the cost of the iPhone 12 (without lidar) and iPhone 12 pro (with lidar), we can guess that the sensor probably costs less than $200, so 3 of them (for left, right, and front) would cost probably less than $600)

          lidar can actually be very cheap and small. Unfortunately, Apple bought the only company that seems to make sensors like that (besides some other super high end models)

          There have been a lot of promising research papers on the technology lately though, so I expect more, higher resolution and cheaper lidar sensors to be available relatively soon (next couple years probably).

          • Grippler
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Yeah that’s not even remotely the same type of sensor used in robotics and autonomous cars. Yes lidar is getting cheaper, but for high detail long range detection they’re much more expensive than the case of your iphone example. The iPhone “lidar” is less than useless in an automotive context.

            • BURN@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              To get the same resolution and quality of image in all lighting scenarios, cameras are actually going to be more expensive than LiDAR. Cameras suffer in low light, low contrast situations due to the physical limitations of bending light. More light = bigger lenses = higher cost, when LiDAR works better and is cheaper

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          My eyes are decent, but if I had a sixth sense that gave me full accurate 3D 360 spatial awareness regardless of visibility, I would probably not turn it off just to use my eyes. I’d use both.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’ve heard Elon Musk (or was it Karpathy?) talking about how camera should be sufficient for all scenarios because humans can do it on vision alone, but that’s poor reasoning IMO. Cars are not humans, so there’s no reason to confine them to the same limitations. If we want them to be safer and more capable than human drivers, one way to do that is by providing them with more information.

      • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        We built things like Lidars and ultrasound because we want better than our eyes at depth and sight.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Camera only should obviously be the endgame goal for all robots.

      I can’t tell if you’re a moron or attempting sarcasm but this is the least informed opinion I’ve seen in ages.