• @TypicalHog
    link
    English
    -4722 days ago

    What are you? Some kind of lidar shill? Camera only should obviously be the endgame goal for all robots. Also, this article is not even about camera only.

      • @TypicalHog
        link
        English
        -3422 days ago

        Because that’s expensive and can be done with a camera. And once you figure the camera stuff out - you gucci. Now you can do all kinds of shit without needing a lidar on every single robot.

        • @AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1022 days ago

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

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

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

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

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

          • @Grippler@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            22 days ago

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

          • @TypicalHog
            link
            English
            -422 days ago

            Perhaps. Idk, maybe I’m wrong. But it for sure seems it would be so much better if we achieved the same shit with a cheaper and more primitive simpler sensor.

            • @BURN@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              321 days ago

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

        • @Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          621 days ago

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

    • @mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      622 days ago

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

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

      • @TypicalHog
        link
        English
        -322 days ago

        I wasn’t attempting sarcasm, so maybe I’m a moron idk. Fair, it likely I’m uninformed. I just know my daddy Elon said something about how solving shit with camera only is probably the best path and will pay off.

    • @howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      621 days ago

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

      • kingthrillgore
        link
        fedilink
        English
        521 days ago

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