this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2025
601 points (98.5% liked)
Not The Onion
17059 readers
799 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Waymo doesn't need it, but he does? lol
That's because Tesla self-driving takes a different, and imo way worse, approach.
Waymo relies on mapping, the entire city is basically 3D modelled and loaded into the car memory. It's more or less 'on rails'. It also uses LIDAR for live data alongside imaging cameras, again building a 3D model of its environment combined with image recognition.
Tesla decided that, for some reason, they want their cars to drive 'like humans', only relying on vision and deployable anywhere, without pre-mapping.
Demanding a computer to behave like humans, instead of using a computer's strengths, seems like a very poorly thought out move to me.
Arguably mapping out cities to this degree across the globe is a ginormous effort, on an order of magnitude more so than what Google Maps etc. currently provide. Thus I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to try designing something that operates purely in terms of sensory input (and of course map data where available, those approaches don't have to be mutually exclusive).