Compare Google's system from five years ago.[1] (at 7:42)
This new video is at n00b level compared to that.
[1] https://embed.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_ca...
This new video is at n00b level compared to that.
[1] https://embed.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_ca...
So jitter/flicker can be cleaned up/smoothed out and the data can be massaged in ways that a real time system may not be able to do.
This is a presentation. I'd be /very/ surprised if this animation was from RAW data as-is.
Also there seems to be Lidar data (point clouds) which Tesla doesn't have.
So while this means bounding boxes may have less detail in Tesla's system this is not an issue as long as they are not smaller than the physical object.
Having worked in the automotive space in the last five years and seen lots of those I'd not say one is less impressive than the other.
So, not only can you afford a tesla vehicle, you can go out and buy one today.
Edit: wording.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/8/14206084/google-waymo-self...
The tesla you can afford still does not have self driving capabilities either btw.
I’m not sure what is implied with saying it’s a recording - both the Google and Tesla presentations are “recordings” and equal opportunity to pick best case examples, but I would bet strongly there is nothing not RAW = “real time“ for their respective compute platforms.
The top down viewpoint helps show off the quality (still by no means perfect) of the world representation. If you projected Tesla’s model into 3D you would see far more jitter than in the video overlay for a variety of reasons.
That said, I think comparing them directly on specific technical components is a bit of a sidebar. They are taking two very different paths along the way to a still ambiguous problem. Both are leading their respective approaches, but have fundamentally different and unproven assumptions.
Also worth looking not just at how accurately objects are detected but what the visualizations show about the intent of other road users. The Google video shows predicted trajectories for important objects in a number of scenes. We don’t get to see any of that clearly from Tesla, and that is by no means a small part of the problem. Not sure if it is there and not shown, just highlighting there is a lot more downstream even once you are finding objects reliably in the sensors.
The car is aware where it is in the world, so a birds eye view is more representative of what the waymo car actually sees, it’s just one of the many ways the waymo car has better data to work with
The technology might be/seem superior, commercially Tesla has cleary won the race..
But Waymo is pilot-testing autonomous taxis and Teslas have a "greater than zero chance" of making it to your destination without intervention.
Tesla is selling cards today, Waymo is not. Tesla's cars are good-enough for most of the buyers so Waymo's technical superiority has to bs much much better warrant the attention and change in public perspective.
On very important thing is tesla has established that your will get better with software updates over time. Other cars have nice adaptive cruise control and self-driving tech but the thought that the car you bought today can in a few months drive better is a massive psychological advantage imo. I don't think Waymo can compete on self-driving features anymore. They have to make the better car and driving experience as a holistic package to stick
Tesla sells cars for which FSD doesn't exist, Waymo is using FSD on cars they don't build.
The business models are different. Why is the natural assumption that everyone will own their FSD car?
Great point.
Tesla exists for people who want to own/drive their cars with cool tech and the dream of FSD down the line via a magical update
Waymo's launched Waymo One as a taxi service but it's only available in one region. My understanding has been that they want to buy a fleet of cars, outfit them with their FSD tech for a taxi service? (So competing with Ridesharing services as an autonomous alternative)
There is certainly plenty of room in the market for people both models
Although I wonder which is more truthful. I bet Google’s demo takes significantly more computing power, was cleaned up for the demo, etc
Turning point clouds into objects is child's play compared to plucking objects out of cameras.
Some people have problems with it, but it works great for me. It's pretty awesome to have the car pull up to me on a rainy day. Part of it is parking in a smart place on the way in.
The van had come to a complete stop with room to pass a USPS truck (it appeared safe to me from 25 feet away), and didn't begin moving again for a few seconds. She then took control.
Of course, this is annoying, and being so timid that you get rear ended is unsafe, but the Tesla approach would be the delivery truck is detected as a stationary object and ignored, so the vehicle would accelerate to the set speed in 3 seconds and slam into it. (See the many reports of Teslas running into stopped emergency vehicles). Of course, Tesla will tell you that their car isn't really self-driving with one side of their mouth, while telling you your car is equipped for self-driving out of the other side.
This is my biggest worry with the way this is promoted. It’s false advertising and misleading to consumers. I wish more companies (in all industries) would be held accountable to accurately portray what they are selling.
That reminds me of all the "AI power" we already use which is backed by low-wage contract workers who listen in.
I might have mis understood the OP’s point with their parenthetical remarks.
My guess is the added sensors may get Waymo to market sooner, but if Tesla can commoditize this technology for far cheaper they will win in the end.
1.25 million die a year in road accidents. We should try to do better than human.
You're right they don't report disengagements, but they still maintain a autonomous test vehicle permit in the state, according to the DMV website. Very strange indeed. I think (2) is probably right.
For Reporting Year 2018, Tesla did not test any vehicles on public roads in California in autonomous mode or operate any autonomous vehicles, as defined by California law. As such, the Company did not experience any autonomous mode disengagements as part of the Autonomous Vehicle Tester Program in California.
https://electrek.co/2019/02/13/tesla-autonomous-mileage-cali...
Nothing about that changes due to semantics (your #1) or if they test elsewhere (your #2).
They both use visuals only and are easily confused when situations are a little different than 'normal'.
I even think Openpilot performed a little better than Autopilot but because Openpilot only has a forward looking camera it fails often on tight corners.
Google on the other hand is aware of the complete 3D surrounding. So even if road marks are gone or are unclear it still can estimate where the vehicle should be on the road.
When the car has no real idea of its position in 3D space this gives problems.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/insid...
This was a really really good read, especially into how Waymo simulations could generate data like seen in this video. It's from 2017 but still an extraordinary article for the quality of engineering insight.