> - Tesla's vision only approach seems a lot more competent than the Lidar suites from smaller Chinese makers. Perhaps I misjudged how necessary Lidar was to achieve safe driving.

Three things can be simultaneously true:

* Tesla's cameras are sufficient for some scenarios.

* Tesla's cameras are insufficient for other scenarios.

* A system with good data and bad algorithmic processing is still going to be bad. The Chinese vehicles almost always fail the tests because they see the obstacle but drive into it anyway.

It'll be difficult for any single company to compete with Tesla on scale and the AI we have so far rewards scale like no other technology before it.

Yes Waymo exists, but the amount of training data they have is a few orders of magnitude lower.

The article notes that these tests were all done in daylight, where Lidar provides less of an advantage.

Yeah it's interesting hearing their engineering logic, that fewer sensor types means less sensor collision and faster iteration, where iteration speed is really what matters. I also think people overhyped lidar because they don't understand it, and human behavior is to associate things we don't understand to magic. It's not magic, it performs poorly in inclination weather and can have issues with resolution over range and data processing (although lidar does do a lot of things well).

All of this said, once Karpathy left they have slowly looked at adding new sensors (recently radar), so who knows what the future for Tesla's sensor suite holds.