Mark Rober Defrauding Tesla? MeetKevin's review.

I didn't see Mark's video as a critique of FSD or autopilot. It was about the superiority of Lidar. The other vehicle stopped itself by the passive use of Lidar. It didn't seem to be in any autonomous mode, and it just saw a problem and stopped. Many vehicles will stop a vehicle if the sensors available sense trouble. If you have Lidar as a sensor then you'll be lots more accurate.

The controversy is that if you watch the video, it shows that the Tesla's autopilot mode was not activated prior to the wall crash and for the water trial, it is impossible to activate autopilot driving over the center line.

I understand... The other vehicle wasn't either. It was about the Lidar vs cameras, Not autonomous driving system comparisons.

Although I did love how he showed how the Tesla breaks for no reason. I really wish we could get that figured out and stopped.

[deleted]

Clearly the answer to stop the phantom breaking is to put styrofoam mannequins of children in the road. :)

That "controversy" is attempting to detract from the only point - that vision-only is inherently going to be unable to handle some situations and is therefore less robust. You could argue that the roadrunner painted wall will never happen but the fog and water will

When LIDAR is present, the emergency breaking uses it too, so he was demonstrating that because of camera only the car could not detect the Wiley E Coyote wall but LIDAR would have.

but he stated that he was going to use FSD to test the camera. If you don't use autonomous driving then the entire experiment is useless. If experiment like this is submitted into publication then it would be rejected and if it gets published then it will get redacted and the author will loose a lot of credibility...hence Andrew Wakefield.

Wasn’t that a problem in the past where FSD didn’t recognize them as children but “far away adults” haha

That argument makes sense if he was actually using the Tesla camera's via autopilot, which is the controversy.

Lidar also can’t handle certain situations. Does that make IT less robust?

Has anyone demonstrated that Teslas can perform the same or better than lidar-equipped cars? The main concern is that if a company wants to go full robo taxi, you’re bound to run into terrible weather conditions like very heavy rain and dense smoke/fog. Having remote assistants won’t be able to solve it at scale.

By definition, yeah

He had to switch to AP because Tesla's emergency auto-breaking didn't work without it enabled, which is a problem because it should engage without AP or FSD enabled when there is an obstacle in your path just as other vehicles do.

At 15:35 AP was active before the wall crash but oddly not just after.

Yes, it's very odd at 15:41 it shows AP was not active prior to the wall crash.

This youtube account has made several of these videos in Arizona taking a Waymo and using Tesla FSD to start from the same location and end at the same destination. In every test that i've seen the Tesla is faster and disengagement free. Recommend you watch all the videos (three i think) if you want to understand the evolution but i don't think she has tested v13 yet. Also worth noting this location is basically ideal for Waymo/Lidar. So the Tesla basically performs as good, if not better, in the most favorable environment for its competition. You can draw your own conclusions. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA12MNFxwoA&ab\_channel=CallasEV](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA12MNFxwoA&ab_channel=CallasEV)

Okay well. I have two teslas and my Teslas disengage in FSD constantly and the Waymo’s I’ve driven have not disengaged. So I’ve drawn my conclusion

Now imagine a Tesla with Lidar... That's the point of the video. He took a whole Lidar sensor through magic mountain... The video was about Lidar. Tesla smarts in the autonomy are way ahead of competitors, but they could be further AND safer with Lidar.

You can have both camera and LIDAR…..

Phantom braking is largely solved, I've been driving Teslas since 2016 and been on FSD beta since late-2020 - currently driving a HW4 Model 3 - phantom braking is a thing of the past. There were absolutely periods of time and specific updates it was really bad, but I don't even remember the last time I've experienced it at this point.

The argument by Tesla is that the limiting factor is software, not hardware. If that is the case, adding more hardware just adds complexity and makes the software solution harder to solve.

You're right, they replayed a split second prior to impact and AP was NOT engaged.

Just not in the fog, heavy hoses or acme wall lol

My model S saved my life twice. Since I bought it. Both instances it force braked and saved me. That's all I know.

I honestly tried to autopilot 2 years ago for a full day, it was incredibly unreliable and scary to be on. Honestly dropping the LIDAR , for cost reason, is a big safety hazard and Mark Rober simply prove it.

This is an honest question, not a joke or accusation: Is phantom braking a thing of the past because they just ignore objects that are stopped? Because that’s apparently what Ford does with their system above ~60 mph in order to avoid phantom braking, according to NHTSA. Or has Tesla figured out how to realize what overpasses and such are so they *know* and don’t slow down, but they *would* slow down for a stopped vehicle, now?

Is he mispronouncing Rober the entire time?

Just a straight up lie. I have never used FSD and not had to take over several times on any drive in the suburbs of a major city. Optimal conditions. I'm not saying FSD is useless, but this is absolute bullshit.

You can see that the autopilot or FSD rainbow was fading out during the first few frames after the view cut to the interior of the car, so it was disabled right before the view started, merely a few feet before impact. He may have just instinctively touched the brakes enough to disable it, but whether it was disabled at that point or not doesn't matter since it would have been far too late if the car hadn't already started stopping. However, I agree that if AP was used instead of FSD the tests were an unfair representation.

Tesla didn’t drop LiDAR. They never had it.

Now try FSD v13, it is completely different. Of fog, water and painted walls, fog is the only realistic scenario that needs more development.

Notice how Lidar car didn't stop for the kid in rain, it stopped for the rain itself (it kinda looks solid on their radar). In a nutshell, all that video really demonstrated is that Lidar might be better with fog and worse with rain than Autopilot. If they only compared it to FSD, that might have been fun and educational

I 100% disagree. And maybe it's different in FSD versus just cruise control... For the past several months I have been having treatment at Mayo Clinic. We drive back and forth to there quite a bit and have phantom breaking happen three to four times on our mostly interstate, 355 mile, trip.

The most predictable time that it happens to us is on a roadway that is fairly devoid of vehicles. It will happen when going around a curve and it sees a semi in the other lane up ahead of us. It's as though the car doesn't see the curve in the road and realize that the other vehicle is in a different lane.

Let's not mistake entertainment for science. What Mark Rober did was a fun experiment, he did not prove or demonstrate anything, you cannot do that without repeated and diverse experiments.

[deleted]

They did have Radar though, which I suspect would have drastically changed the conclusions of the test

If you're using Autopilot instead of FSD, the difference is night and day. I had a loaner a while back that didn't have FSD and the amount of phantom braking and take over immediately events on Autopilot was enough to get me to stop using it entirely.

Maybe so, but that’s not the confidently incorrect claim I’m responding to.

Cmon man. I love Tesla too. Think harder. What do you think is the true reason why our cars don’t have lidar?

If only FSD had Lidar and camera... That's my takeaway. If one can't fully get where it needs to be then we need both.

Probably because he freaked out (due to oncoming wall) and hit the brakes. Either way by that point he's hitting the wall...

I mean, he was comparing autopilot VS AEB. since Tesla AEB wasn't stopping for shit. So technically already a step above what the lidar car was doing.

Autopilot autodisengaged. https://x.com/markrober/status/1901449395327094898?s=46&t=jmRe2uuCwPvuQybOOm5L3w

Having both makes the software problem of solving for FSD significantly more complex. If people think one source of "positive" for emergency braking is causing a problematic amount of phantom braking, then use two and see how much worse the problem is.

I love Mark Rober, my son is in year 3 of Crunchlabs, but what he did in this video is really suspect. He said multiple times that vision-only is a "less sophisticated technology" while having a guy who runs a LIDAR company with him; meanwhile he starts without even using autopilot at all with the throttle pegged assuming it should stop, then he claims he uses autopilot (and turns it off) while not even mentioning FSD, which is far superior to autopilot and has 360 degree awareness that a front facing lidar system will not. It was completely disengenous and serves as clip fodder for the same people celebrating Tesla vandalism (and these clips are already going viral of a Tesla hitting a dummy child). In my opinion this should result in a suit and I'm disappointed in Mark Rober here.

Tesla hate, so hot right now.

Yeah, a proper test here would have been to also add a test with the water, but no fake child. That part really bugged me when I watched it. Really any time the car stops, the test should be done without the test dummy too as a control.

It’s supposed to be complex. You are trying to out do the human brain with a computer and some sensors. It can’t and won’t be easy. Making a shitty product with just cameras because it’s easier isn’t a good justification

How does a manipulated “test” of a scenario that would never happen in real life prove anything?

FSD is literally an entirely different software stack from Cruise Control. That's like saying it's not raining in New York since it isn't raining in Houston.

well. I experience phantom braking daily on the highway. however, it is limited to two sections of the highway only. 2024 model Y

Complexity is inevitable as technology progresses.

a Tesla on FSD now does slow down for a stopped vehicle/object. That's the entire reason for this post's existence - Mark Rober did not use FSD in his test to determine if his Tesla would stop for a stopped object (child) / fake wall. He used a limited software stack that he knew would fail, instead of the actual SOTA one that wouldn't have made for good content.

You're missing my point. The argument from Tesla is that it's not a hardware problem, it's a software/compute problem. Humans, with two eyes, can drive perfectly fine. Tesla's camera suite has far more view points than just two eyes, spaced a few inches apart. The idea is that the hardware input from all those cameras, being superior to just two eyes, is more than sufficient. And to solve the problem, they simply need to improve the software required to process the data appropriately, and possibly improve processing power/compute, if the complexity of the software necessitates it. Adding Lidar to a hardware suite that is already more than sufficient to solve the problem is only going to further complicate the software required to "solve" the problem as well or better than a human can. Thus, adding a layer of hardware that will only make solving the problem take longer is an unwise move. The better move would be to find ways to increase the software iteration toward perfection, and if necessary, on-board compute, depending upon the processing level necessary when the software gets to the required point. Time will tell whether Tesla is right or wrong about this. But it's a very logical approach. People just saying "herr derr, just add lidar to the cameras" absolutely do ***not*** understand what they're suggesting, and the complexity it would add to solving the problem of FSD.

He posted the footage on x, it auto disengaged without him doing anything about half a second before the car ran through the wall

Do you have FSD, or Autopilot?

Or she just cherry pick it for content. Ask you said she never test V13 and I think most people who use both V13 and Waymo think V13 is somewhat behind Waymo not to mention V11 and V12 (which is far behind V13) can ever beat it.

Multiple cameras is not automatically superior to two eyes. Eyes are way more complex than cameras. Also, you’re all over this thread shilling for them when you don’t know what you’re talking about. I work in the vision industry with AGVs and we deploy LiDAR, radar, and cameras. The stakes are much lower and we still don’t use cameras only. You can absolutely use cameras and LiDAR together. Of course it takes time, it should. We’re talking about self driving cars. It’s not supposed to be done quickly. Tesla is rushing a shitty product to market because they’ve been making bullshit promises for years and have to keep showing something for it. Cracking true autonomous driving is a huge endeavor and Tesla isn’t the one to do it.

I've posted in two places... That's hardly "all over this thread." I don't believe you're in the industry. We'll see if Tesla is the one to do it or not. I'm not wasting any more time talking to you. I'm trying to be objective, but you sound like you have an axe to grind with Tesla.

I always wonder about this scenario when Tesla says autopilot was not engaged for a specific accident.  If it disengages right before impact, does that count as an autopilot accident or not?

Sure, but when the whole premise is fabricated it detracts from the clickbait.

soup spoon uppity unwritten shaggy deliver cooperative wakeful chop water *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev/home)*

It's the same reason there are essentially zero physical buttons inside the car. It's all been value engineered out of the design.

Not solved. Just finished a 1500 mile tx-co trip last week with my 2023 lr Y on 2025.2.8. Had several random braking incidents - one of them actually scary. It's getting worse not better.

I’m pretty sure AEB is active regardless if the car is on AP/FSD. I’ve had the car [activate AEB](https://www.reddit.com/r/MildlyBadDrivers/s/qi2H3mUIhw) when a car partially entered my lane.

My Model 3 is hardware 3 and I haven’t had any auto pilot phantom braking in over a year.

That's bc Autopilot is programmed to disengage right before a collision. It's normal, but you can see that it was on the whole way. The video is actually a pretty legit comparison of LIDAR vs Camera-based. The YouTuber in OP is blowing it out of proportion for engagement tbh and it's pathetic lol. He explains it at the very end but the accusation is simple. The title is clickbait bc the video never used FSD (aka self-driving) but if that's the worst you can say he did.... eh.

He never says FSD once in the video, actually. Only autopilot aka Autosteer

I love my Tesla Model 3, but two senses are better than one.

It's programmed to auto disengage, I hear, just prior to collision

I don't disagree with this point... But making a problem more complex than it needs to be will only cause it to take longer to solve. Tesla's argument is that Lidar does precisely that with FSD. Time will tell if they're right or wrong. But they sure seem to believe they're right, and they're putting a lot of people who are a whole lot smarter than I am at solving this problem toward that effort.

Same. Used to happen all the time, now o actually can't remember the last time it's happened.

I'm not saying it's not active without AP/FSD, but it doesn't work very well and it's very easy to override. I've had instances where, in my opinion, it should've activated, but all that happened was the warning and I had to apply breaks manually. For example, if I so choose I could easily drive my MY into a wall or fence while parking. These are simple situations that the vehicle could mitigate.

Speak for yourself, my HW3 car does it all the time. There's even a specific overpass that it phantom brakes for every single time I drive under it (hundreds of times)

I think there are ultra sound sensors on the car that could detect the wall at very close ranges

wouldn't surprise me if they implemented that feature using the ultra sound proximity sensors

I know for their bulk data reporting they'll count anything where autopilot disengaged less than 5 seconds before accident. Individual incidents though may be reported differently

I mean that kind of makes sense - you don't want the car to keep driving through a collision that would make it worse

It was definitely a step ahead at least. Through a wall.

Yesterday my car drove from Logan airport in Boston to central Cambridge through downtown Boston, at night, during rush hour, on FSD, with zero human input. I am not lying.

The LiDAR system stopped for the heavy water instead of the kid, and Mark made it sounds like the LiDAR system sees the kids through the water last minute and stopped for the kid.

Idk but my 2018 hw3 model 3 slowed down for kids on my block and dodged a stray cat once

It's a tradeoff, it works as good as human can see (which is generally enough), it's cheap and cars don't look like wenmo with ton of spinning thingies

I watched the video, it’s active before the wall, but not for the water crash. Either way, it’s not FSD, it’s legacy autopilot. They’re more or less comparing state of the art LiDAR to state of the art autopilot 4-5 years ago. Would love to see if FSD would slow down for the fog. At this point it feels like Luminar chose the scenarios, and that Mark let himself be a tool in their marketing campaign. I don’t doubt the efficacy of LiDAR, but the tests feel cherry-picked.

Hopefully FSD will someday understand to slow down for fog and a wall of water.

This video was trash, and the guy in it should be sued for wasting my time.

Auto emergency braking is supposed to work regardless of AP/FSD.

and he explained on his twitter that he doesn't know what caused that because he said it wasn't him.

you clearly didn't watch the video...

The sensors, if designed into the vehicle, and not slapping on like waymo does would not be visually intrusive. Good enough is rarely ever actually good enough. It's just how we rationalize things.

[https://x.com/MarkRober/status/1901449395327094898](https://x.com/MarkRober/status/1901449395327094898) You are making shit up and attributing a lot of malice where it doesn't exist. Your judgement is clouded by your bias for Tesla vehicles.

how would it be able to detect a painted wall?

You can’t compare AP, FSD, and TAC as equal in any way

Maybe, but they dont ship cars with those anymore. They use the cameras.

I said I actually have a bias towards Mark Rober, I've watched him for many years and I've also owned Tesla's since 2018, and I understand the difference between autopilot and FSD, how these work, and how LIDAR works. I watched Mark Rober's video with my kid, before there was any controversy about it. My impression of the video watching the ENTIRE thing (not just a clip) was that he did not paint a full picture of the two technologies and their differences, did not even mention FSD, and had a guy who owned a LIDAR company with him declaring it superior with no additional comparative context; I just left a bit disappointed that he didn't fully explore this topic with the same degree of curiosity and open mindedness that he does others. I still like the guy, I just think he could have done a better job here providing appropriate context and comparison.

Largely solved in FSD* Just got done with a 250 mile drive in HW4 MYP. 5 phantom breaks on autopilot. It’s absolutely still a thing. So much so that I rest my foot on the throttle so when it brakes, my foot cancels it out.

Yes, let's make sure to listen to a massive Tesla shareholder. Not biased at all.

This right here. The Driftless region in particular is hell on ADAS offerings from everyone, FSD and autopilot included. Anyone with experience from the area should understand why. The tightly rolling hills and steep topography are a perfect recipe for false collision alerts and resulting phantom braking events. Tesla has improved greatly in recent years, but it's far from a solved issue on autopilot and FSD. FSD is *better* but not by a ton in my experience across both HW3 and HW4. The road itself simply looks like a stationary object. The typically referenced overpass issues has been a solved issue for a while now in comparison.

Heavy rain and fog is no different with a vision only system vs a human driver. You would not barrel through heavy rain or fog as a human driver, why would you be doing it with a vision FSD? You should not be driving farther than you can see and safely stop regardless if you are using lidar or not It is not a problem to use a vision only system. The extreme rare circumstances of vision obscuring fog, rain or dust storms just means you slow down. It is the same thing I did when i drive through a dust storm in phoenix. Lidar doesnt make it safe to drive 65 MPH down a highway when your visibility is only for 15 MPH. It is a non issue.

What do you do when the expensive lidar and the cameras disagree with each other, which do you believe? As a programmer how do you resolve the conflicts between the 2? Lidar is too expensive to install and maintain over the life of the car. Heavy rain and fog is no different with a vision only system vs a human driver. You would not barrel through heavy rain or fog as a human driver, why would you be doing it with a vision FSD? You should not be driving farther than you can see and safely stop regardless if you are using lidar or not It is not a problem to use a vision only system. The extreme rare circumstances of vision obscuring fog, rain or dust storms just means you slow down. It is the same thing I did when i drive through a dust storm in phoenix. Lidar doesnt make it safe to drive 65 MPH down a highway when your visibility is only for 15 MPH. It is a non issue.

Glad airplanes don’t have this problem

I think they were on to something when they said multiple sensors was causing problems and using too much compute. They are confident all the data they require is available visually. That we can drive is proof enough. But I heard it said that integrating them was like trying to read a map while driving. Its helpful for somethings but very detrimental to others.

This is the real issue. 2 sources of data is only enough to say one is wrong, not which is wrong, and certainly not what the true value is. 3 sources would work, but adds yet more cost. For what benefit? Like you said, if visibility is only suitable for 15mph, having RADAR or LIDAR confidently driving 65 mph is unsafe regardless.

If I recall correctly, the test was not performed properly and performed by Dan o’dow, a famous detractor that has an OS software company for other cars and therefore, is in conflict of interest

This video doesn't tell us what FSD or autopilot would do. Its clearly off in the video and fuckery is afoot.

[deleted]

Because the Tesla was on Autopilot. Just lane keeping with adaptive cruise control. That is what cruise control in any other normal car would do too.

if it were normal circumstances, you wouldn't be able to engage it at this point. for one, he was using autopilot and not FSD. The test does not replicate a real world scenario.

Such as what? All it sounds like is that you wanted him to add a bunch of excuses and caveats to explain away why Lidar was better. Why does it matter who was with him? Do you think that guy being there was somehow magically influencing the results? In what way did he "declare Lidar superior" that has you so bothered by it? It passed more tests than the camera based Tesla did, which sounds a lot like what superior means. He explained Lidar and how Tesla detects things well enough for the test...What difference do you want him to specify beyond what he did? One physically maps out the surroundings while one takes video and runs it through algorithms to figure things out. What could he have said or done that would have made the results more legit? How would FSD have been any different, especially in the fake wall test? The test had nothing to do with FSD (as the other car was not using it as far as I am aware) and was simply based on object detection. Finally I have hunch about the autopilot turning off before the collision. I think that's a built in liability function in the Tesla cars. Every time a Tesla crashes one of the first things they try to throw out there is that "FSD/Auto pilot was not on at the time of the crash" which sure...Is technically true if it disables itself when it decides a crash is iminant. There is nothing about Tesla or Elon especially that tells me there is any reason to believe they are not willing to do such a thing....Just look at the track record of safety violations and other issues at Tesla factories.

[deleted]

You probably just got used to it. Mine does it pretty frequently it's just not that noticeable. It just slows down 10-20 mph for no reason and I quickly give it gas or increase the autopilot speed again.

The problem with vision only is at night on a dark road or during bad weather conditions or even when the sun shines right into the cameras, I often get warnings that multiple cameras are “limited”. Why would we want just vision when we can also have LIDAR. It’s not like LIDAR is some new complicated system. It’s been around forever and is used in multiple applications that are not expensive to implement. So at night, or during bad weather conditions the car can see BETTER than me.

This got very technical with terminology, and I don't even know the real point of this video anymore other than bringing awareness to vision only. I just want vision vs lidar tests, because from experience vision only is still NOT FULLY reliable (sun glare, heavy rain, fog, water puddles on the road). Source? Self and friends. Recently it has also given itself front collision warnings while in autopilot on curvy roads (first hand experience multiple times, but I think this can be fixed by making the car stay in the center of the lane like before). Even Tesla had concerns for a few years, since Tesla bought $2M worth of lidar from Luminar last year. And also, Tesla has been working on Phoenix radar for a few years. But anyways, currently we've got bigger problems with Tesla. Drive safe out there!

It's an honest mistake to make. We can't really expect Mark Rober to understand how the scientific method works and how to do proper experiments /s

I don’t think most people would be interested in paying $100/mo for experimental tech

Were you paying attention to the road ?

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=127473 Here’s the science. autopilot < Lidar

The loudest voices on this sub are no different 😂

Emergency braking should be an entirely separate system that is not tied to any package or service. A simple radar, not even lidar to override the autopilot would be so much safer than this.

That's the confusion. There is no full autopilot, there is only autopilot (lane keeping and cruise control) and Full Self Drive. Both of those are misnamed, which confuses people. A test with FSD would almost certainly have stopped for fog. It would be major news if it did not, so someone probably tried it already.

The same way humans can. And ask yourself, how often is it a problem humans come across whilst driving?

As opposed to someone performing real world tests of everyday situations such as painting a wall and driving towards it? Or where they don't do a control test of not having a kid in the rain so make sure the LiDAR system saw the kid instead of reacting to the water? Neither is unbiased.

Well if the driver’s foot was pressing on the accelerator, that would override any of the options (FSD, AP, TACC, and I think even the AEB (automatic emergency braking))

i agree that's what happened he instinctively tapped the brakes, but he didn't apply any force so the crash was all the more spectacular.

If only there was a sensor that would be able to read the distance from an object. Something we could equip on every car as an input to help visualize the world around it. Hmm…

Yes but any other vehicle without lidar would have probably done the same, but its also disingenuous to say you are using Autopilot then not use it just to get the results you hope for.

Not really. The radar was low-resolution and couldn’t tell the difference between an object in the path of the vehicle vs. a bridge overhead or a piece of debris on the shoulder. So it was always ignored for that kind of situation. What the radar was actually good for was tracking other cars ahead in the same flow of traffic. Including the “2 cars ahead” trick. But of course those don’t apply here.

It's a recent software development that depth can be accurately extracted from video, rendering lidar unneeded. This is an FSD ability. It may not see through the fog and rain, but I'd be really interested to see a proper test against the others.

Yes. One way to cross. I looked to the right and saw one car from my angle. Other car right behind was racing another car back to back. 3 lines. They can out the from behind the middle car. I had enough space to go across. So I thought. Middle car was maybe going 40 but cars behind last second lane change were going 50 over the middle car. My tesla slammed my brakes and I barely missed the cars racing.

Radar - Lidar

There would be no parallax with a painted wall. That’s largely how FSD infers obstacles that it cannot classify. It’s the same way you could tell the difference with your own eyes.

FSD is not active, like in doaent give FSD, but some minor stuff only (still crazy priced). So autopilot here. Newest update pretty much fucked it over.. again. Before that i had close to zero phantom breakes. Newest software... 4 the other Day in a fairly short drive.. MY HW3

He was in autopilot at 15:34. You can see rainbow road turn on. https://youtu.be/IQJL3htsDyQ?si=jP-pKUvKSMYp4acy

As explained in the video...Humans are way better at detecting details than a camera is. As for how often? Idk but I do know at least one Tesla killed a man because it couldn't recognize the broad side of a truck trailer and ran right into it.

Airplanes also don’t have cameras or LIDAR. We have radar on board, but not for navigation. So, humans who are paying attention don’t have this problem. Autopilot (on an airplane, you know) will gladly fly you into the ground, any day of the week. Always thought Tesla naming their driving assistance feature after an airplane feature was dumb.

Correct, except emergency braking's activation tolerance are a lot more specific than when AP (and especially FSD) want to slow down due to road context. He likely didn't use AP because despite not being designed at all for that kind of thing, if was likely spotting the obstacles and therefore slow down or stop without triggering an emergency braking, because the algorithmic threshold to trigger emergency braking weren't met. Remember, emergency braking needs to be 100% sure and within defined parameters to activate, and so in its eyes low confidence impacts of readings that do not make sense IRL (like a painted wall in the middle of a road) have to be discarded. Meanwhile FSD and AP had more options to adress low tolerance readings that so not involve slamming on the brakes. That leads to the premise of judging a self driving system that isn't one and that you purposefully handicap and constrain (by doing things like keep the accelerator pedal pressed to cancel the system corrections) to them compare it to what is basically the one "advantage" lidar would have, cause you are sponsored by a lidar company.

Thankfully I haven’t had that issue lately. But now that I say this I’ll expect it next drive

Some guys in here need to hear this: Don’t fight on behalf of corporations. They do not care about you. They care about your money. Nothing more nothing less. I know a Tesla is a lot of money but don’t feel like you have to defend a product, because you bought one

A lot of manufacturers were removing radar/sonar for some reason. But lidar would be pretty cheap too (I think) didn’t they use to use lidar on the Teslas?

I haven’t had any phantom braking in the past 2 years, and I’ve definitely had those happen before that.

Defaming?

Well, no one should drive into a wall of rain, so no, it's perfectly acceptable that it stopped...

they have never used lidar , lidar is expensive but now it is getting cheaper . They use lidar internally to train FSD

I mean, I'm not going to talk about the rest because I don't have a lot of knowledge on this, but if the cameras and lidar disagree, then you probably just simply trust the lidar, since you can safely assume that it's picking up on something that traditional vision systems aren't. That being said, I can't really think of anything that would make them disagree, do you have any examples?

Jesus; [first Veritasium](https://youtu.be/CM0aohBfUTc?si=hV5_tpd7kA7vd0ul) and now Mark Rober. YouTube science communicators are starting to get a really shitty reputation for unacknowledged paid propaganda.

> That "controversy" is attempting to detract from the only point Then why did Rober feel the need to lie, if his point was so easy to demonstrate without it? He claimed autopilot wouldn't stop for the wall, then smashed into it ~~without autopilot engaged.~~ ~~He flat-out lied, which throws every other claim he makes in the video into doubt.~~ **Edit:** Hmmm, actually if you watch [Rober's video](https://youtu.be/IQJL3htsDyQ?si=GH193HKyRbfcMZqL) on 0.25x speed and concentrate on that section MeetKevin says shows autopilot isn't engaged, there's a *single frame* at 15:42 - as the video wipes left to right from a shot of the post-crash rear of the wall to the pre-crash driver view inside the car, where [on the dash UI you can see a faint green glow ahead of the car and a faint red glow behind it](https://imgur.com/a/mark-rober-tesla-crash-test-autopilot-disengaging-cySVERQ), which fades down to a normal white road before the wipe is even complete, that could actually be the autopilot disengaging.

I thought it was an interesting video and not a video about different car designs. It was about different sensor types and their advantages and disadvantages.

I'm not here to debate, like i said - you can watch the videos and draw your own conclusions.

Also the video has multiple takes and not just one [https://x.com/i/birdwatch/n/1901470733924176028](https://x.com/i/birdwatch/n/1901470733924176028)

This girl made 3 videos. Each time the drives for both FSD and Waymo are posted side by side and completely un-cut and un-edited... I'm not here to argue or debate. The videos are proof enough. So don't try to tell me she's lying. You're not going to convince me that what i'm watching isn't real lol.

I want my robot controlled car to see better than me, not the same (and honestly worse). Anything to reduce the margin of error in driving performance is better, and only vision ain't it. Having Lidar is 100% better to have than not, and arguing that it doesn't help or make a difference is silly.

Seeing this a lot here... "braking" not "breaking" please. The OCD in me is having almost palpitations every time I see someone say their car is "breaking" which obviously means something completely different.

You don’t provide an FSD version and the model year of the tesla you have

That's great. I used it for 3 months to drive two hours everyday. Major 6 lane road to an interstate, to a 4 lane road, to a 6 lane. I had to take over 4-5 times every time, not including parking. It almost merged into another car in broad daylight. It's a 2023 M3.

The older Tesla’s used to have radar and I noticed a marked improvement in early warning detection if you didn’t know

The truck scenario does happen and can be tested; and after that incident it was, obviously. The painted wall scenario does not occur except maliciously. Fooling autonomous vehicles was a bit of a game a couple of years ago and I think it became a legal mischief matter because of the potential danger. Robots and humans shouldn't need to worry about such cases. Same with last moment water sprays.

Certainly true up to now, even with early v13 builds.

Lidar has no problem detecting it at all

Even rain sensing should be managed with hardware until the software is up to the job.

It's the machine learning. Bad input data.

If only Lidar was aerodynamic, cheap and mechanically robust over a 15 year lifespan.

My 2021 Kia brakes automatically when it detects an obstacle ahead, even when adaptive cruise control is turned off

The first video she was accused of cherry picking, since the Tesla was able to take the highway while Waymo couldn't. So she tried additional routes to make it more fair. Waymo cannot do highways right now. But it also completely screwed up with a parking lot and a roundabout. The Tesla did great each time. Watch it yourself.

Autopilot on HW4 still is bad, FSD is damn near perfect though.

It’s not even FSD, and on X people showed that he used multiple takes like going thru de wall for exemple because frame by frame the speed of the car was not the same on the display. It’s a fraud and he’s in a undisclosed partnership with the company that made the Lidar

AP disables itself right before collision, this guy doesn’t seem to understand that. Robers video has it on properly, it’s not clever editing or defrauding anyone.

This is inaccurate as AP will reduce the maximum speed when visibility is reduced. However in the Rober video it just wasn’t on long enough to get there. I’ve personally had the system reduce speed for fog in the mountains. Sunlight is the other one I’ve experienced.

The LiDAR system also stops for heavy rain and snow making it worthless in the real world.

the idea is that FSD is safer and improvement over humans, not to be the same as a human. if lidar can see through the invisible, it should be considered as an improvement for safety.

FSD is much safer, it can see 360 degrees at the same time, it doesn't blink, it doesn't get distracted, it doesn't get tired. it doesn't drink. it can make 100 decisions per second. Any car manufacturer out there can do lidar if they want. but it is not cost effective at scale. Lidars are moving parts that wear out. And in 30 years of driving I have only had to slow down under the speed limit for poor road conditions like 3 times in my life. If someone thinks lidar is better, then some car manufacturer should do it. But they won't because it is too expensive to install and maintain for .001% of edge cases.

It is not fair to compare cameras on a Tesla to human eyes, the cameras have much worse dynamic range (taking pictures in low or high light) and lose resolution at an inverse square rate to the distance from the sensor.

"He didn't demonstrate anything"? Have we just given up on the idea that words have meanings?

Just because you haven’t had a good experience doesn’t mean they’re lying. No two people will see the exact same behavior on FSD, even if they did the same route right behind each other. And everyone’s tolerance for taking over is different. I’ve seen plenty of videos of it having zero intervention drives, and many on this subreddit have also experienced it on their daily routes.

How is there any basis for a lawsuit here?

not my first language, but I was referring to the meaning of a scientific demonstration, when you prove something, as opposed to a single experiment, which doesn't prove anything, but it shows that something can happen. Showing that something is possible is not the same as demonstrating a principle or rule.

I don't think he was using autopilot at all during the water test. The car was riding right over a double yellow, AP wouldn't want to do this. [https://youtu.be/IQJL3htsDyQ?si=FJ9R9JJnDAA60bMR&t=789](https://youtu.be/IQJL3htsDyQ?si=FJ9R9JJnDAA60bMR&t=789) Maybe it was TACC? Hard to tell in any of the tests if he's on the accelerator or not, I believe that will override a lot of breaking events. Regardless, not very controlled tests here.

The pessimist in me thinks the reason they used Autopliot instead of FSD is because FSD would've passed all of these tests and made for a very boring video.

Lidar is a requirement

For what? Compare two system by faster time to go somewhere is pointless in the first place. And cherry-picking is not only about route. We all know that V11 and V12 can achieve disengagement free drive but the problem is how consistent it is. She can easily manipulate that.

Most modern vehicles with similar safety features have radar, which is cheap and would do just as well here, Tesla is the one that insists on not having anything but cameras.

Who cares! No chance it detects that fake wall. The fake wall is also stupid because it would never be present in any real life circumstance. The other tests were more legit.

I truly full self driving system will likely need to rely on more than one type of sensor to cover all its bases. LiDAR and Camera would go a long way. Look at what Waymo is doing with LiDAR, Radar, and Camera. [https://waymo.com/blog/2024/08/meet-the-6th-generation-waymo-driver](https://waymo.com/blog/2024/08/meet-the-6th-generation-waymo-driver)

> As a programmer how do you resolve the conflicts between the 2? Tesla already resolves conflicts between multiple cameras and other cars already resolve conflicts between cameras and lidar. It depends on the situation and what each sensor is best suited for and more likely to be correct about a specific fact.

I can’t believe we’re in a world right now where we have to argue whether or not lidar + cameras is better than just lidar or just cameras You should expect both as a consumer for the best experience lol

Wouldn't radar and ultrasonics help?

Is Autopilot even an option on cars with FSD activated? I don't see an option to enable Autopilot anymore, only FSD.

We don't know whether FSD can do that today because Rober didn't bother to test FSD. Rober only tested AP and didn't even mention that FSD exists (despite the video being titled 'Can you fool a self driving car?').

I don't get it on the highway or suburbs, but do still occasionally get it on winding rural roads with high speed limits. And even then, it's more like stuttering and stabbing the brakes than the old full-slam behavior.

lol, try it at higher speeds like in this video. Hint: these safety systems automatically disable themselves to prevent having this issue on a highway.

The LIDAR-equipped car that was traveling at the same speed as the Tesla didn’t crash though a wall though

I’m talking about normal cars and their safety systems. This is standard practice and also the reason for this failure: https://youtu.be/aNi17YLnZpg?si=-9ptMtWRXplYIHKK Comparing custom solutions to normal road cars is kind of misguided anyway. If you look at actual certified testing authorities like NCAP, the story changes completely: https://youtu.be/4Hsb-0v95R4?si=Ec548TTvzibC5JWI

Here is a comparison from NCAP footage: https://youtu.be/4Hsb-0v95R4?si=Ec548TTvzibC5JWI It’s the European safety agency for vehicles.

Normal cars don’t self-drive themselves into walls

Not gas man! Juice!

It is pretty much "solved" in latest versions but they solved it by ignoring "noise" by a large margin, including major potholes and objects in road. I just ran over large debris in the highway and FSD pretended it didn't exist. They de-noised it too much, and is why LIDAR is the safe solution for this.

that is not extremely rare in many places. Between fog, rain, snow, and haze, there are probably at least 14-20 days a year where I live you can't see too well on the way to work in the morning.

ok well i imagine you slow down during those days, and even if you had lidar, it is not safe for other drivers if you are barreling through the streets at the speed limit. You should still slow down to what is visible.

in autopilot or fsd?

I drove about 10 miles on autopilot yesterday. Had 2 phantom breaking events, mid afternoon on a clear day.

>How is there any basis for a lawsuit here? He explains in the video. You watched the video that you're commenting on, right? Here's the timestamp. https://youtu.be/FGIiOuIzI2w?t=13m35s

Wouldn’t know. I don’t have FSD

Yes, radar is really good actually, but Tesla famously abandoned it to save a few buck. Ultrasonic is only good at small distances. Think parking sensors. It's been thought that the ultrasonic sensors saw the wall in mark robers video and is what killed the autopilot.

That’s a fair assumption if you have a driver and a steering wheel. But back to my train of thought… if Tesla wants to deploy a fleet of robotaxis with no steering wheel, those poor visibility conditions will be a concern, especially with scaling said fleet.

I mainly use auto pilot on the interstate. That might be the difference in our experience.

This- in the CT hills and curves, the false breaking is insane. 2023 Model 3-

Indeed. That is what safety testing is for. And this video and what safety regulators point out. No car would be allowed on public roads if they would fail these test.

True dat.

What does the human do in those cases?

Ding ding ding Without doxxing myself, I work in the industry, and the whole "which sensor do you trust" problem is a big one. It's easy to take a demonstration vehicle, with only Lidar controlling the brake command, put it in a situation where you can tune the sensitivity and brake triggers, and then make a Youtube video. In the real world, vehicles operate under sensor fusion. A camera can sense lateral position better than a radar can for example and vice versa. The various sensors etc all see something slightly different and the system has to be tuned for when the fused object is created, and what difference in speed, position, and heading are allowed before you "ignore" the sensor. You can get false positives on the one hand or late/non reactions on the other. So any kind of production software that's been in the market for years is going to make those compromises and demonstration vehicles for start ups are not. They don't even have responsibility for that, they just sell sensors to somebody and it's their problem if there's false braking.

This is supposed to be better than human drivers.....

I also have two Teslas and I use FSD every time I'm in the car. Very rarely do I need to disengage and typically when I do it's in a parking lot or when I'm arriving somewhere I take over. FSD is probably the one thing that would keep a Tesla at the top of my shopping list until another car maker has something that will come close to it, which I suspect will be a few years.

Yeah sounded like he was saying “Roper”. It was diving me nuts. Make sure you know how to correctly pronounce someone’s name before calling them out.

The real phantom braking that spurred the term and discussion really doesn't happen anymore - it was HARD braking (I'm talking threshold braking) in situations where it wasn't necessary - shadows, etc. Nowadays anytime someone has their Tesla slow down even a little bit for no real reason they refer to it as phantom braking.

Do most taxi drivers use LiDAR or something? Do you use LiDAR to drive? I don't understand this mindset that all of a sudden in 2025 cars are dangerous without LiDAR. We've driven without LiDAR for 125 years lol My car drives in heavy rain just fine and its not even HW4

My Subaru definitely would disengage the adaptive cruise and leave it in my hands with really low visibility like that.

Honestly, I don't even trust that the Lidar car auto-stopped for the rain. Could easly have been an intervention and no way to prove otherwise. Clearly just 100% entertainment.

What are those errors when he tries multiple times to enable FSD or AP (not sure which he's using - I dont use rainbow road)?

That's not fraud.

You do know LiDAR equipped cars de-prioritize LiDAR inputs when it rains, snows, or hits heavy fog, right? Radar is great for distance keeping, but to actually drive when things get bad you need...you guessed it, awesome video processing!

You are right. The problem is not to use a vision only system. The problem is to use an underequiped vision system. What resolution do the cams have? Does it come anything close to our eyes? Nope. Also, wouldn‘t we be better drivers if we had the ability to send out some invisible waves that, when they bounce off things we know where things are? I mean if we could somehow merge those signals with the ones coming from our eyes and ears, we could get a much clearer picture of whats going on and adapt accordingly. But i get it. A bunch of 480p cameras are much more cost-friendly than a LIDAR setup.

Remember that not all cars, even the same make and model and year are identical. Minor differences in sensor manufacturing quality or placement can lead two "identical" cars to function quite differently when dealing with fine details like that. Tesla manufacturing has massive variance in quality over a production run. They cheap out on consistency.

That video made me laugh. If you've ever ridden that ride more than once, you've seen the interior with the lights on. They hold the ride all the time for safety purposes and turn on the lights when they do. I've seen it all lit up multiple times and only been to Disney 3 times.

So does a Tesla, but not within 1m of going from broad daylight to fog.

I'm a fully self driving system and I don't use lidars or radars

Lidar maker getting desperate. Obviously took them a lot of effort to stage that.

Modern vehicles with radar will happily hit a stopped vehicle. Since radar pings off of stopped vehicles are disregarded to prevent phantom braking.

Ya, I figured that. Never been to Disneyland. It was very impressive to be able to map so quickly though.

Heavy rain and fog (or snow) is why Google waymo lidar equipped vehicles don't operate up north. California, Arizona, Texas etc where snow is rare.

It‘s called radar, even really cheap cars have it as standard nowadays. If you want to go better, add lidar. Planes use more than one type of sensor to be safe. No software update will ever add missing technology.

It disables itself: https://imgur.com/gallery/tesla-silently-disabling-autopilot-just-before-crashing-into-wall-3gyDeAp

It disables itself: https://imgur.com/gallery/tesla-silently-disabling-autopilot-just-before-crashing-into-wall-3gyDeAp

https://imgur.com/gallery/tesla-silently-disabling-autopilot-just-before-crashing-into-wall-3gyDeAp

>You should not be driving farther than you can see. Like I told my last wife, I says, "Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it's all in the reflexes."

It is disengaging. In those same frames you can see when the auto steer icon in the upper left disappears. Likely this is from steering input overriding the system and this disengaging. This is based on the video he posted to X where we see the same disengagement behavior as his left hand turns the wheel a little to the left momentarily.

I'm sure there's a balancing act to prevent phantom braking but they don't disregard every stopped vehicle, my own car once activated for a stopped car on the side of the road on a bend. It disengaged before fully stopping the car as I was turning enough to not collide anyway, so it was technically a phantom brake.

> very rarely do I need to disengage Unless you *never* have to disengage for the entire ownership duration of your vehicle, you are orders of magnitude off from ready for Robotaxi. Waymo’s disengagement stat is once per few *millions* of miles.

> made 3 videos For all we know it’s 3 videos cherry picked from 50 videos that were *not* published. When you are comparing a 99% system (Waymo) to a 90% system (Tesla), it’s actually not difficult to cherry pick a bunch to make the 90% system seem just as good (because it *is* in 90% the situation!), or even better (if you cherry-pick the 1% of the time the 99% system fails).

Watching the videos would *not* enable drawing conclusions, that’s the whole point! Because we don’t know the test methodology and how many tests she ran. For all we know she did it 100 times and cherry-picked 3 videos that make FSD look better, or she only ran it 3 times and each time FSD performed better. Without that kind of information, the videos themselves are absolutely useless other than proving that “FSD *can* work sometimes”, which we all know. That’s why it’s important for schools to teach critical thinking and the scientific methods, so our society doesn’t rely on YT videos as proofs.

Statistically speaking, it already is by a factor of 10.

>A bunch of 480p cameras are much more cost-friendly than a LIDAR setup. The cameras are each 5 mega pixel, 2896x1876, and they dont blink and dont get tired and can see in 360 degrees. Any car manufacturer out there is more than welcome to put lidar in their cars. It is a free country. The reason they dont is because the technology doesnt work at an affordable price. So go for it. you go out and put lidar in a car. Even the company in the video with the lidar is just making lidars, they are not actually building cars for sale with lidar. The people who build these things already know there are problems mixing lidar and cameras. If you are smarter than them, then you go and do it. im sure your skills will be in high demand. it doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be significantly better than human drivers which it already is at an affordable price.

tried both. V13 and autopilot. both will phantom brake at the sections of the highway. I have to manually disengage. Sometimes, the map data will be outdated and it will change the speed limit to the old one even though it has been changed for months. Overall, I won't pay to get FSD as it is too risky to be a tester.

It’s fraud. He claimed the video covered a self-driving car without using FSD.

I rarely now have to take over my Tesla and when so it was something dumb not life threatening once a month about

A quick grok prompt gave a few answers. The solving will likely be one (or more)of these to be used hopefully in hw5: Thermal Imaging Cameras - Detect heat signatures to see through smoke, fog, and rain. Infrared (IR) Cameras - Use near-infrared light to penetrate haze and light rain. Millimeter-Wave Cameras - See through obscurants like heavy rain and smoke using radio waves. Polarization Cameras - Filter scattered light to improve visibility in fog and rain.

Who would have thought the intuitive result of going vision only is the exact results in the video. No law suit. My Tesla would perform exactly the same ever since they disabled my lidar sensors

I bet my left and right nuts that his hands slightly nudge the wheel and took it out of autopilot.

Example of what happened that cause you to say it is unreliable and scary?

There is a brand new update where Mark Rober answers the criticism, it's the first story in this video A couple points: * Mark loves his own Tesla and plans to upgrade soon. He has no financial interest in the outcome of the test. * There were two takes for the wall, the first version went through a paper wall, there was no foam wall. We see the beginning of that take but not the end. The car just tearing the paper wasn't that visually impressive so they later did the foam wall. * Mark didn't believe he would be able to use FSD as they were on a controlled road where they wouldn't be able to navigate to a destination. He also didn't think it would change anything. * The cars were provided by the lidar company. * This video has been in the works for about a year. https://youtu.be/W1htfqXyX6M?si=9zEqRQIHm4GqAia1

Example 1. Stoped at a light. Green light comes nobody is in front of me, but cars starts making left turn in the opposite direction, the Tesla starts the U-turn, accelerate than breaks then accelerate that break takes me like that to the middle of the intersection then the autopilot gives up and tell me to take over. Example 2. driving on a one lane road getting to a stop sign , missed the stop sign and I have to break by myself. Example 3. on ramp of the freeway, have to merge into heavy traffic, the car can't merge cause there is too much traffic (should have just slowdown to allow traffic to go), run out of lane and then gave up asking me to take over. So to make it simple at any time the car was driving I was more anxious, just waiting for the autopilot to make a mess that then it is asking me to fix. On the plus side I though the driving on a freeway with light traffic was actually pretty good if it wasn't for the fact that having to keep the hands on the steering wheel without being able to hold the steering wheel firmly (otherwise the autopilot disengages) is very tiring and annoying.

Same here. I regularly use Tesla FSD and Waymo’s on the same route and it’s no comparison, Waymo is years ahead.

All fair point, U turns didn't really get better until recent versions, I'd say within the last year or so it got a lot better. I haven't had any issues with stop signs. Red light on the other hand, had a couple times it tries to run a red, but I think I see why it does that, not really scary as a person that pays attention to the road all the time, I simply just disengage it by hitting the brake. Merging is the one I've experiencing issues a lot, seems like it is not a sensor issues but a judgement issues.

Thanks for the feedback, I might rent a new Tesla in the coming months so I can check how it is today. I tested about 2 years ago.

[removed]

[removed]

It sees in 3d because it uses multiple cameras in the way we have 2 eyes we have depth perception. It is very clear to see when you watch FSD it puts a rendering off all the real-world objects on the display and it is very obvious it can see the distance of all those objects. I have watched dozens of hours of the full self-driving videos from "the whole mars catalog" and various other youtubers and the full self-driving is absolutely amazing. Is it perfect? of course not, and neither are human drivers. it just has to be statistically significantly better than human drivers and it already is and will continue to get better and better. It is going to happen and it is going to save lives. Tesla makes the safest cars in the world and they will continue to get better and better. People who are armchair quarter backing are not looking at all the data. The sooner we can get drowsy, drunk, distracted, and degenerate drivers off the road the better.

Give me your left and right nut

Not yet lol, gotta prove it, show more raw footages and redo the tests.

False. You likely dont drive a tesla nor watched the full video. AP was disabled twice. He disabled by steering wheel in the wall test and by driving on the lane in the rain video

Lidar is not perfect either. Everything is a progress

Are you kidding? Phantom braking is very much a thing still

Autopilot detects people and objects with basic image recognition then places them in an x,y,z vector space. FSD uses a giant neural net to look at the scene as a whole and I believe it would have noticed something up with that painted wall.

You can easily override by pushing down on the throttle.

Did he create the thumbnail using paint?

Bunch of snowflakes in this sub lmaoooo

Doesn't that prove my point? Again, I'm in optimal conditions here. Suburbs, wide open, clearly defined roads and interstate. If they can't achieve consistency under those conditions...

Correct. And we've seen both make enormous progress in recent years.

You write “lying” wrong

Yes but the cameras on cars can be in MUCH better positions than the human driver’s eyes

LIDAR isn't free, we can't just add extra sensors and everything gets better, technology has trade offs. Even if we ignore the cost of the sensors, LIDAR data is very different than video data. Collecting and labeling tons and tons of LIDAR data takes a lot longer for humans than labeling video/image data. Which means it's a lot harder to build an auto labeling pipeline, etc. A problem with LIDAR is the occasional bit of noise, random dust/percipitation/etc. that causes false readings. Google announced AI tech to filter that out years ago, but it doesn't seem like they've been able to get it working at scale consistently enough yet. Arguably Tesla's biggest advantage in making FSD work well is the huge amount of data they have, that's labeled and useful. If they added LIDARs to all their cars today, it would take years for the usefulness of the LIDAR data to catch up to the vidoe data.

So this is where Tesla will disable autopilot right before a crash, so they can argue the crash wasn’t caused by autopilot in court?

I don't believe so, because it only disengages a second or so beforehand, which would make it extremely obvious in the telemetry what happened and they'd be crucified in court if they tried to claim that. Autopilot is little more than automated lane-keeping and adaptive cruise control, and is not supposed to be used without the driver aware, with hands on the wheel and in full control of the car. At the point a crash is imminent the safest thing it can do is disengage and let the driver take over fully, instead of trying to fight the autopilot which is trying to move the car in a situation it was never designed to operate in, with potentially damaged or misreporting sensors.

Teslas need to have LiDAR if they want self driving to be real

i'm not sure if you're trying to convince me, or yourself...

It’s almost as if most systems on the market aren’t just cameras or lidar, but rather a combination of sensors that include both. The most effective way to reduce the noise you mentioned isn’t to use AI algorithms to “denoise” your data. Instead, it’s to have redundancy to immediately validate the reading across the entire system’s perception of the event. If Tesla had that redundancy, I firmly believe they’d have the absolute safest self-driving platform on the market.

I think it’s pretty important that your car does basic emergency braking without needing to drive itself for the feature to work.

Kind of funny for this to be your argument when Tesla’s camera based rain detection has been notoriously awful. 😭

OP’s point was that in those tests FSD was better specifically than in Waymo’s mapped areas. Tesla will follow Waymo’s rollout by going one city, metroplex, or state at a time where they know it’ll work. Right now we still don’t know precisely what its optimal conditions are, since some have consistent zero intervention drives and some don’t.

One correction: The human eye does not have depth perception. It is a single sensor that creates a 2D image exactly like a camera. Depth perception comes from having 2 eyes, and a brain that processes the two images to give you depth perception. This is why there are multiple cameras on the front of the car. The more "eyes" you have, the better this depth perception will be since you have more sources of data to fine tune positions of objects. This is the same principal behind why having more GPS satellites in view allows you for better precision on your location.

[deleted]

Do they have test results for the Cybertruck? The model Y has to be the peak of Tesla design. Very cool to see it succeed so early compared to the other automakers.

Not a single one of those other cars is Lidar equipped I don't think, including the EQS - it didn't have the Lidar nostrils on the nose.

Came here to say exactly what you said. Only time will tell what the limits of camera based autonomous self driving cars are... I don't think this Mark Rober video gives a full picture. Seems awfully suspicious that the lidar company shared this video as soon as it went live but then deleted it from their website , and their earnings report is THIS WEEK! I smell fraud.

That article is playing it like some damning revelation, but it's just what any reasonable level 2 driver-assistance system should do as soon as it becomes obvious a crash is unavoidable - play an alert and immediately return full, unmediated control to the driver. As long as it's properly contextualised and nobody uses the fact it wasn't running *at the millisecond the car struck the other object* as evidence the system wasn't to blame, it's all perfectly reasonable (in fact substantially *more* reasonable than the driving assistance feature trying to stay in control of the vehicle throughout the crash).

>I believe would have noticed something up with that painted wall.  Yep. Seems it saw this transparent wall just fine: [https://x.com/niccruzpatane/status/1901976539228410218](https://x.com/niccruzpatane/status/1901976539228410218) IMO: Mark spent a lot of $$$ making that video and needs the clicks, he needed the car to fail.

Waymo disengages seamlessly to remote operators, so it's impossible to observe a disengagement when taking you're a ride.

> impossible to observe a disengagement That’s why we don’t rely on user observation. And btw that doesn’t count as a disengagement since remote operators can’t take over that quickly. Waymo publishes their disengagement stat as part of government requirement: https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2024/02/03/2023-disengagement-reports-from-california/ You see Tesla isn’t on that list? Because Tesla has done zero miles of FSD on the streets of California.

I need no convincing, I’ve been right about this since 2016 lol. Every year people like you falls for “I watched this YouTube video so FSD is right around the corner!!!” and years later the same conversation repeats. Tesla is at least 5 years away from actual FSD, they haven’t even begun the last mile effort yet (like handling emergency vehicles, following construction worker hand gestures, stuff that Waymo has been doing for 10 years).

I have no idea how he thought he couldn't use FSD in this test. I assume he isn't lying, but it's hard for me to believe.

If the road was not navigatable, like maybe it's on private property and not a listed road, or there is no cell service (so no detailed maps or online access) where they are, would you be able to enter an address and enable FSD?

*CAN* being the operative word

I'm actually not sure. I wonder if I have a road like that I can try.  One thing I'm also not sure of. I can engage FSD without putting in a location. Does that actually use FSD or does it use Autopilot?

I was under the impression that FSD requires a destination to navigate to, and without that you would be enabling AP. I don't have FSD so I couldn't tell you for sure.

I have FSD. I'll go test it in a bit and see if I can tell.

Back in 2005, disneyland had a museum on display on mainstreet near the entrance. In the museum they had a scale model of the space mountain roller coaster so you could see the track layout. wish i would have taken a picture but a quick google search shows many pictures of it.

You can tell the depth of objects with one eye open, simply by focusing your eye. You can try this and easily verify it yourself right now. You wont be able to tell as precisely as with both eyes, but you can still determine distance. The human brain is good at combining both of our eyes and focal distances to gauge accurate depth. It's one reason VR fails to fully impress. The light is all at one consistent level of focus, so it doesn't feel real. Computer focuses can focus as well, but we currently don't refocus computer cameras in cars to gauge depth, relying primarily upon multiple cameras. You could theoretically develop that ability in digital mapping, but it hasn't been done to my knowledge.

Not entirely correct either. People with one eye can still perceive dept and likewise a Tesla can often only see an area with one camera and make a depth prediction.

I activated it, by all indications it used FSD, just drove me straight down the street a few blocks. Then I hit 'home' as the destination and it drove me home.

Sure, you are right that it could be done, but this manner of measuring depth is far more noisy and complicated than just having multiple cameras. You'd have to not only scan these images that come in very quickly, but also scan even more pictures quickly as you move the focus back and forth to then calculate the depth with a moving focus. It's not worth the greater compute need and complexity of a scanning focus to improve the accuracy of the depth. You can easily add another camera to give you a greater improvement on precision of the depth measurement at a fraction of the compute and complexity of a scanning focus.

Indeed, as another reply pointed out a mechanism for this. I should clarify that it's not the number of eyes, but the eye-brain combination that gives depth perception.

Trying to achieve the balancing act is exactly why Tesla ditched the radar.

that's cool dude

It's really just OCD and hearing things that are clearly wrong. Like if people are walking around claiming that 2+2=3 I would bothered about the same.

According to Andrej Karpathy it's actually just not the case it seems. He mentioned a while ago that any additional sensors just creates more problems than they solve, hence why they disabled the USS sensors. I mean I would assume a simple Kalman filter would alleviate any issues of sensor reliability but I'm also not in the trenches with them figuring it out.

So would any other car have just stopped if you were accelerating towards that?

Does that matter what speed you are going or if you are accelerating vs coasting(in a non-regen braking vehicle), and/or braking? I’m sorry if that’s poor phrasing but I’m curious at how much control AEB has over the vehicle.

It should at the bare minimum attempt to engage brakes before collision.

I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying, a single human eye does have depth perception. I can see limited situations in which only cameras (even multiple of them) fail when human eyesight wouldn't, because we have evolved to do that extra processing. (Even if computers are faster and less error prone in general.) Ultimately I think a hybrid approach of camera visual feeds, with limited lidar redundancy will be the ultimate way to go. But then again, I work cybersecurity now so that's up to other engineers.

FSD doesn’t need a location to navigate to. In mine it will just continue on the road you are on without having to input a destination.

No, the cybertruck isn’t proposed for sales in Europe (yet). But I doubt they would try that. It would categorize as a small truck, so maybe… Edit: They did release this for the US market: https://youtu.be/sINxIHVEj9A?si=lh_yrzCxNQ4MAula

Just to add, I am also curious if a car with lidar is even possible to be used in such scenarios. Lidar is great for object detection - and that's it. Really that's it. Road signs, traffic signals, speed limit signs, road markers etc. are all vision based. In a scenario of high fog/rain/etc while Lidar may be able to pick out an object that doesn't mean an autonomous car with Lidar can still drive as it's not able to 'see' anything else, so it would still not be safe to operate autonomously. The use-cases for Lidar seem to be either somewhat fringe Wylie-Coyote set-ups that aren't tested properly it seems still, or just maybe better object detection than cameras. The complications however are fusing multiple sensory inputs together, what if Lidar and Cameras disagree on an object in its path? Would this cause noise and irregular behavior? Sensory fusion is not simple even in basic dead-reckoning GPS systems using car inertials, I can only imagine it's vastly more complicated in autonomous driving systems. If a Camera system can operate seemingly equally, as Tesla frequently tests with a modified Tesla car with Lidar ontop to validate FSD, then to me it seems not relevant to even include Lidar for the reason of cost and complexity. Devil's advocate here for Lidar would be for more non-autonomous use-cases, e.g. automatic breaking while in low visibility but Teslas currently do that practically better than any car in the world already via vision even at night/low visability so it's probably a hard sale. (https://youtu.be/4Hsb-0v95R4?si=Ec548TTvzibC5JWI)

You don't need to enter an address. And I've used it with no cell service, in the smokey mountains, on dirt roads that weren't named.

> Lidar is great for object detection - and that's it. That is correct, if it was super foggy, the lidar could see that there is a speed limit sign but wouldn't be able to tell you what the speed limit says. Lidar is for the fringe edge cases, its expensive, complicated and not needed in 99.99% of the miles driven and if you slow down it really isnt needed at all.

Lucid Air is just one example of a car in that video that 100% has front facing Lidar (1:29 in the video). NIO ET7 as well. The Mercedes C-Class also may have Lidar (C-Classes since 2022 have had it if they have Drive Pilot)

Eyes do not have depth perception themselves, but you can use a single eye to **get** depth perception using the brain's processing. This would be the same as saying "you can measure velocity with an accelerometer". You can't measure velocity directly with an accelerometer, but you can calculate it by integrating the acceleration readout over time. I agree though that lidar and radar would help with redundancy and accuracy.

Mark Rober is doing just fine. He doesn't need to light his reputation fire for clicks.

The fog and rain will and should cause the car to slow down at a safe speed just like a human would do. But too bad in this case FSD was not used.

It does, but this test was not using FSD...

Yes

Have a video?

\> Mark didn't believe he would be able to use FSD as they were on a controlled road where they wouldn't be able to navigate to a destination. He also didn't think it would change anything. So strange, why not test it? :D

That isn't really any different than autopilot is it? It will presumably just stop at a t junction (for example) and do nothing at that point as it has no idea where to go.

So cars with Lidar + Cameras vs cars with just cameras, clearly those with lidar have more data to make decisions in fully automated driving scenario. What annoys me about Marks video is he markets himself as a “NASA scientist” and presents the video in a way that makes it seem fun but still 100% scientific. It’s obvious that the video wasn’t done in a scientific fashion at this point and whether it affected the outcome or not the owner of the LiDAR company just donated 2 million to Marks foundation. The combination of both of these means he is probably open to litigation and someone needs to retest the whole thing just for good measure and my personal enjoyment. Honestly I don’t expect the teslas to do better the the lidar car, but they may do better then they did in Marks video.

Car with better technology performs better at tasks that the better technology was developed for! Shocking!

So MeetKevin committed libel by claiming someone else broke laws.

Actually there is one test FSD will fail to perform vs lidar/radar. If the fake wall road looks like a real road where a human couldn't tell the difference.

This is bs, it has been reported that Tesla shuts down autopilot when in imminent collision. That is what happened there

Sure, let’s give rober benefit of the doubt. How about running autopilot over the center line during the water trial?

Redundancy is better, but adding more sensors isn’t inherently better and adds true redundancy. LiDAR data is different, and the model will have conflicting data from time to time. Just like Tesla said when they removed radar, it’s really hard to make the system consistently determine correctly which sensor is more correct than the other when there is conflicting data. Unless you have some super intelligent AGI or something that could understand the data in real time and decide itself what’s correct, our software cannot be perfect and will sometimes choose the wrong sensor. Adding sensors will inherently add problems with modern software. This is the reason Tesla removed radar and doesn’t want LiDAR (and money of course, those are the two biggest reasons for having only vision in FSD, though that is helpful for both sides since it means that it’s also much more scalable for Tesla, and it means that repairing is much cheaper for the consumer). So Tesla believes that doubling down on vision is better with current software. Maybe in the future we could have a good enough AI that could determine this, and so integrate LiDAR into FSD, but currently it seems that it’s wrong to claim that adding LiDAR is inherently better than not having it. Theoretically? Absolutely yes. Realistically? Arguable.

That makes no sense, you can have the software give as much or as little weight to the information provided by the radar as you want. Having more sensors is a good thing, it reduces uncertainty from any one sensor having weird measurements.

Autopilot's image recognition also uses a neural network, no?

Fair - don't think the C Class does though. The Lucid seems to have long range Lidar. The issues Tesla faces is a fundemental physics one though, vision based systems can't or have great difficulty seeing through fog and heavy rain. Basic logic suggests a hybrid Vision and Lidar system would be best. Tesla's software is very good though, I'll give them that. Imagine how much better it would be with Vision and Lidar.

Deciding how much weight to give is the balancing act. Here’s an analogy to help understand it. Your brain uses 2 sensors to determine your orientation in space, your inner ear, and your eyes.  If you spin around quickly a few times and abruptly stop, typically you’ll feel dizzy. This is because your brain now needs to resolve a conflict between two conflicting signals. Your eyes tell it you’re stationary, but your inner ear which has liquid inside tells it you’re still in motion because the liquid is still sloshing around in your inner ear.  Makes sense?

It depends on what purpose, if it's autonomous driving that would not change as an autonomous car must have proper vision to operate. Lidar is purely for object detection, and seemingly it heavily depends on the software whether it works well or not as evidence that even simple ABS Lidar cars are seemingly under performing compared to Tesla purely vision. While I think in principal you're correct - sensor fusion of multiple sensor types does not only add cost to Lidar hardware, a cost/benefit that isn't very well quantified, but it can add complexity. I worked on dead reckoning systems with 'simple' filters for navigation and using vehicle inertials and that can be itself somewhat fuzzy in results, there's a lot of behind the scenes smoothing going on and thats with a very clear source of truth (GPS updates). I can only imagine it's magnitudes more complex to use two sensory inputs for something going through an AI neural net and it would constantly raise contradiction questions, what if Lidar and Vision disagree? They'll always disagree to some amount so what's the allowable disagreement probability? Who is trusted if they go past that threshold? Anyhow in theory yeah it should be better but in practice fusing multiple sensor inputs together can add a lot of complexity and that raises a question: is it worth it? Automatic braking systems perhaps though Tesla seems to be objectively one of if not the best already in this, autonomous probably not as if fog/rain is obscuring vision you need to turn off anyhow as you cant see road markers, read signs, read road signals, see traffic lights etc with Lidar. Keep in mind vision also isn't flat, its stereoscopic. It has depth perception just like human eyes (even moreso with more front facing cameras). I would argue someone shouldnt need to have Lidar for ABS either as the car should only travel at a speed that it is safe to operate at, e.g. if you have only 20 ft of visability then the car should only travel at a speed condusive to that visability.

They repurpose a near-windshield camera for rain detection, which has its flaws. However, criticizing Tesla's FSD performance in the rain solely because of subpar wiper functionality is unfair.

IIRC Autopilot does not use End to end neural net.

Your robot controlled car does see better than you... It sees 360 degrees around without blinking or being distracted. You do not. Furthermore the robots computer can react hundreds of times faster than you in a much more calculated way to avoid the primary threat and to not do a "faulty evasion" (that is where a driver swerves to avoid one car and causes a crash with another car, which is their fault) LIDAR is not fool proof. A big mirror set at 45 degrees to the road would trick it. And while you might find that ridiculous, so is a big mural that looks EXACTLY like the path behind it. LIDAR cannot see through super thick fog. The laser will diffuse and not make it back to the sensor. The people thinking FSD needs lidar to be workable dont understand tech it seems.

As of last year, about 90% of new cars sold in the US have automatic emergency braking. Heck, it will be *required* in new cars by 2029. That doesn't necessarily mean they will stop in time, though, just that they should apply the brakes in a situation like that to reduce collision speed once the systems detects an imminent collision.

its super obvious that it uses FSD when you don't put in an address. it's not even close. AP is totally different and it only reverts to that if that's all you've enabled (autosteer) in the menu/settings.

its super obvious that it uses FSD when you don't put in an address. it's not even close. AP is totally different and it only reverts to that if that's all you've enabled (autosteer) in the menu/settings.

It does see better..? It has a 360-degree view across 8 cameras that it analyzes at all times without blinking. My head only has two; they are inside the car with me, and I blink a lot when I'm not using my phone. Does it see as good as lidar plus cameras? NO.... but why stop there? Let's add radar, more lidar and 12 8k cameras while we're at it. Where do you draw the line? The 8 camera suite alone has substantially more detection bandwidth than a human driver - and the argument is that this is enough.

I see. I've only used FSD.

Light is at one consistent level of focus? Can you elaborate

https://imgur.com/gallery/tesla-silently-disabling-autopilot-just-before-crashing-into-wall-3gyDeAp Where?

It will follow stop lights and stop signs and whatnot, which autopilot will not.

Light isn't just color and intensity, but also direction. When light travels through the lens of our eye, it is either blurry or in focus depending on how closely the rays of light are aligned to each other, after being refracted through our cornea. We can adjust the shape of our cornea to change the balance point where the most number of rays of light are in focus at once. Cameras can do this by changing their focal point. In VR, all light originates from pixels at the same distance from your eyes (with some refraction from the lens.) So far away objects are just as in focus as close up objects, and you never need to refocus your eyes to see between close up and far away objects in the VR world. This is where technology like "Light Field" and distance of accommodation versus distance of vergence come into play. If you are able to properly replicate the directional nature of photons to match their emitter's distance in VR, we'll have a much more immersive experience. Human brains use that information to infer a sense of depth (outside of stereoscopy).

Same, I am not in the position to say Lidar vs some other solution but there is even a huge difference between cameras outside the car, with no ways to clear rain or debris, and my eyes inside a cars cabin with windshield wipers.

Another test was already posted. In short HW3 failed. HW4 passed but the lighting conditions were drastically different. https://youtu.be/9KyIWpAevNs?si=Jl2jontngYl_lQzv

FSD will just drive, if it gets to a T it normally turns right in america. so in my neighborhood it takes me in a circle if i enter no address

Go get some cars and drive them into walls and see if brakes are applied. post here, thanks

nope

It's not about the wall, it's a out running over the kid in the rain and fog ffs

He released the raw footage. AP disengaged itself less than half a second before collision.  Mark speculated that the ultrasonic sensor detected a close object and disengaged (with some saying this is intended to shield Tesla when data logs are reviewed). This sensor isn't as detailed or long range as lidar and can't avoid collisions at speed.

From [Tesla's own page: ](https://www.tesla.com/autopilot) > This computer runs the Tesla-developed neural net, which is the foundation for how we train and develop Autopilot.

Another YouTuber has recreated the situation with a Model Y with FSD, but unfortunately it still couldn't detect the wall.

new tests [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KyIWpAevNs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KyIWpAevNs)

Link? EDIT: Found it  HW4 Cybertruck succeeded on v13 but time of day was noticeably different. Does the Cybertruck have a front camera? Is the HW3 model Y missing one?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KyIWpAevNs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KyIWpAevNs) Watch this video then, 2nd Part of the video the cybertruck detects the wall and stops! So what can't you believe exactly? your own bias?

Cyber truck has hw4. Better cameras and computer. That will certainly help it distinguish a painted wall.

Tesla disabled the radar in the older cars because they introduced too much noise and was worse. You’d think eventually LiDAR could be added but I guess it’s much more complicated to use both at the same time.

I’ve used FSD in snow, rain, fog. It works about as good as a human. I’ve got HW3 so HW4 should be better. It would be cool if LiDAR was added in the future but cameras should eventually do as good as eyes. Better even with good cameras

FSD, Autopilot, and AEB are all entirely separate systems that work independent of each other. Saying they’re the same is disingenuous or just plain ignorance of how they work. To say “Can a self driving car be fooled?” And not only neglect to actually use the car’s FSD software, but justify it by calling AP the same when criticized really hurts your reputation and credibility. The fact that the latest FSD software and hardware [actually stopped](https://youtu.be/9KyIWpAevNs?si=pBKGWyXDz7at9y2l) when someone else recreated his test only makes it worse. “I’m pretty confident it wouldn’t be a different result.” Oh really?

Some guy on X just did the test and he was able to use Hardware 3 w fsd and tesla truck stopped on all counts. An older model with legacy hardware autopilot did not stop. Essentially mark rober used the car to force a Fail outcome.

Lidar is still clearly superior

FSD also failed with the "older" hardware. It only detected the wall with a new Cybertruck with new FSD hardware. Another youtuber tested this.

the fake wall was a fun roadrunner reference, classic cartoon skit. It was fun.

I understood the concept and agree it was amusing and well done

Thats the reason they gave, the more likely reason they disabled them is because the newer vehicles don't have them and they didn't want to support sensors they are no longer using and also because there were more than a few instances where people were showing those sensors had the older cars performing better in various situations.

> s almost as if most systems on the market aren’t just cameras or lidar, but rather a combination of sensors that include both Haven't you seen the news of Xpeng and MobilEye ditching lidars?

Why would turning off FSD mode disable the "don't run over children" mode?

Mark Rober already provided video of just that. The others passed the Tesla did not.

Of course it can't. It goes off of image recognition alone.

Far superior. It confounds me why they went with optical only.

It doesn't?

Did you watch the video?

You cannot believe it because you are not really involved in the industry. More is not always better. Eventually we will get both, but the first working general version will be vision based.

It's absolutely hilarious watching people who have zero idea of what they are talking about try to trash Tesla. They bury themselves in their first sentence.

Yes.

Tesla uses lidar all the time...to train the vision systems. There is nothing new about them buying lidar systems from other companies and I doubt it will ever change. The problem was not that lidar is not good at doing what it does. The problem is that trying to integrate it with vision -- and you \*do\* have to do this -- means you almost always end up with two systems competing. And what do you do when they don't agree? You probably favor one of them over the other. But if you do that, why bother having both systems? This is a severe simplification of the problem, but it's good enough for Reddit. The fact is that lidar is really impressive to people not really involved with the industry. That's the reason why we are even still talking about it.

>very time a Tesla crashes one of the first things they try to throw out there is that "FSD/Auto pilot was not on at the time of the crash" Oh, for the \*love of Benji\*, could you at least take 5 seconds to check what your strong (but wrong) intuition is telling you? A quick google search and two minutes of reading would have revealed that what you said is wrong. When Tesla does its statistics, it counts a crash as an Autopilot (or FSD) crash if the systems were on anytime within the last 5 seconds before the crash. So they do not "try to throw out there" anything. You are the one spreading misinformation. If it was a mistake, then just go look it up, come back here, and admit the mistake. We all make them, so clearing this up would be good for you and anyone who reads your posts. If you are being malicious...well...we know how you will react to this.

I said it to remind people that they are buying that stuff even as recent as last year. I didn't say it's a problem buying from others, it's rarely ALL in-house. And probably? It's social media. They are both impressive systems, and have come a long way especially for those that saw how they performed only 3yrs ago. And I don't see a problem discussing it over and over while educating people.

stats =/= PR statements

But the video shows the opposite of your comment.

Correct. But I have the feeling you think you were saying something else.

Your original statement implies something. It's not entirely clear what, but I think a less careful reader would think you wanted to say that Tesla is secretly working on a Lidar solution. They are not. And to be absolutely clear, Nobody, including Musk, has said that Lidar does not work. SpaceX uses it as does Tesla for calibration and training purposes. What Elon Musk has said (and he is hardly the first or only person) is that Lidar does not work as part of a general FSD solution; at least not until there is a vision-only solution. The reason given over and over again is that there is only so much you can train at once, and the extra data actually leads to very persistent local minima that is hard to shake off. Throw in what I said before about the competing systems and it's just not time yet. I think Lidar will eventually be used, but only after there is a strong vision-based system that works by itself. Then Lidar can be added in to improve the system like so many people here are trying to say. I reserve the right to change my mind if there is a huge leap in how fast systems can train, but I am unaware of any such leap that is either here or on the horizon.

Lidar and Phoenix radar are two different things, and that's why I mentioned a specific name so the less careful reader knows that. However, I'm not familiar with that radar but this was part of HW4 and I think only for Models S and X. I just don't have time to analyze every automaker out there, and read every article and that's why it helps when others chime in. So thanks for clearing it up, I do appreciate it and hopefully others do as well. And that's all I was saying, referring to your "I think Lidar will eventually be used", or some other system in unison with vision. Enjoy your week!

no...I know exactly what I was saying. I never said anything about statistics especially internal ones. I was talking about PR.

It’s not strange in the least. There is no conspiracy here.

You too!

But I was talking about statistics. Still not really sure what your point is. Perhaps one sentence replies are not the way to go here?

Its extremely strange. An engineer doesn't usually offer flip responses that can be easily torn apart. The statements about we think it wouldn't have worked and it uses the same sensor are very disingenuous. He spent many takes getting the outcome he wanted including building an entirely new wall "for effect" and running the test again, but didn't have the time to quickly test FSD on that road? The FSD test would have taken less than 10 minutes to verify one way or another. As an engineer Mark would have known a different software package, or even an update can make a world of difference on performance. He let the lidar company do the test on their products. He did the test on his own Tesla not actually using FSD, or the latest version of HW. If he was being fair he would have had a Tesla rep run the test with whatever hardware/sw the chose like the other company did. This is engineering 101 stuff. I'm usually a Rober fan, but he pretty much lit his credibility on fire with this one. He is either being intentionally deceptive, or he isn't nearly the engineer he pretends to be.

So I have no horse in this race whatsoever, but didn't you kind of go against your original point? Where you insisted that the Tesla doesn't do this, but then here you also say that it and other cars with similar systems should do it?

Do what? Crash into a wall? I never said that. I just criticised Rober for (apparently, it appeared at the time) not testing what he claimed to be testing. Disengaging the autopilot as soon as it determines a crash is imminent? No, that's what any level 3 or below driver assistance system should do because they aren't competent to make decisions in a crash, and I never claimed otherwise.

> You should expect ~~both as a consumer for~~ the best experience lol Fixed it for you.

> Has anyone demonstrated that Teslas can perform the same or better than lidar-equipped cars? This will probably only be revealed after having years of statistics. The very important thing to keep in mind is that LiDAR can't read signs, so the car must also have a vision system. Always. The question is, can those systems work together reliably. Tesla doesn't think so. Waymo does. We will see who is correct.

If a human couldn't tell the difference, then I imagine it would become a problem very quickly...

It *has* to disengage. By law. Not disengaging would make it dangerous.

> ever since they disabled my lidar sensors What are you talking about?

The cars don't have LIDAR. They use image processing only. Google "Do Teslas use LIDAR" if you don't believe me.

How can a car without auto pilot, engage brakes prior to a collision? Please share example.

A biased test funded by the Lidar car company….

I don’t understand your question. My Volvo will automatically engage my brakes when I’m driving if it believes a collision could occur.

The difference here is that FSD is end-to-end neural net. So while they do both run neural nets, they aren't comparable is they have been been engineered in different ways. FSD is far more of a black box afaik, in that it doesn't use code to make decisions, unlike Autopilot, but instead relies on the neural net to do the decision making.

The neural net portion should really be the default, even without FSD. Not sure why they haven’t done it yet.

One of the problems is lidar pollution. Every manufacture includes it for their auto braking system.

How many people actually have FSD? An expensive feature shouldn’t be required to do stuff that basic.

Costs. Lidar is much cheaper now than it used to be but it was always about driving down costs.

It is not silly, sensor fusion can cause more problems than it solves. I'm not saying it's better or worse, just that it is not as obvious as it seems that adding more results in better.

I would slow down in this situation and I hope Tesla trains FSD to do the same

Waymo uses both

Trading safety for affordability. Not exactly a selling point.

I would assume it would also increase computation times as well if camer and lidar have to share and compare information. This could mean crashes could become less avoidable since the system would work slower

The problem is, you increase computation times by having to compare the two systems. This could slow down the reaction times of the program and lead to more crashes that could have been avoided if computation times were faster

Lidar still has the issues of not being able to see clearly in fog or rain so it doesn't really help it against vision based

no, people are arguing the fact he helped his friends company by defaming another company intentionally.