> which you can only achieve with visible light spectrum video
Well, no.
RGB is really useful. But actually, you can get pretty good object recognition from a point cloud alone. I mean its better to have RGB as well. but infra-red works just as well.
The problem that appears to escape a lot of the commentary is latency. Sure, you can have a rudimentary stereo camera setup and get _some_ depth information reasonably fast. But it won't be good enough to tell you if that blob that's 100m out is stationary or moving towards you.
Lidar gives you high resolution long range 3d point cloud at 30hz (or faster). The best most reliable depth from monocular/stereo will have a latency of at least 150ms and will be a tiny resolution.
The chances are that we will have sub $100 CCD based lidar before we have low noise/low latency/full resolution depth from monocular/stereo cameras.
The other big issue is that to get decent high res depth from deep learning, you need to have decent segmentation. Segmentation comes for free with lidar (assuming you impose rgb over it.)
> spending all of their energy on creating neural nets around lidar then they'll reach a local maximum where they never begin to tackle the much more difficult problem truly needed for self-driving.
This does not make all that much sense. You don't just train on lidar, you feed in steering, acceleration, braking, gears, signs, radar, pretty much everything.
The other important thing to note is that tesla's stuff is still level 2. volvo, BMW, and a few truck companies are all at least level 4. We are celebrating a "genius" who has yet to actually release a system that does what he claims it should.