"In the camera+LIDAR case, you conceptually require AND(x.ok for all x) before you accelerate."
This can be learnt by the model. Let's assume vision is 100% correct, the model would learn to ignore LIDAR, so the worst case scenario is that LIDAR is extra cost for zero benefit.
This is not going to be true for a very long time, at least so long as one's definition of "vision" is something like "low-cost passive planar high-resolution imaging sensors sensitive to the visual and IR spectrum" (I include "low-cost" on the basis that while SWIR, MWIR, and LWIR sensors do provide useful capabilities for self-driving applications, they are often equally expensive, if not much more so, than LIDARs). Camera sensors have gotten quite good, but they are still fundamentally much less capable than the human eyes plus visual cortex in terms of useful dynamic range, motion sensitivity, and depth cues - and human eyes regularly encounter driving conditions which interfere or prohibit safe driving (e.g. mist/ fog, heavy rain/snow, blowing sand/dust, low-angle sunlight at sunrise/sunset/winter). One of the best features of LIDAR is that it is either immune or much less sensitive to these phenomena at the ranges we care about for driving.
Of course, LIDAR is not without its own failings, and the ideal system really is one that combines cameras, LIDARs, and RADARs. The problem there is that building automotive RADAR with sufficient spatial resolution to reliably discriminate between stationary obstacles (e.g. a car stalled ahead) and nearby clutter (e.g. a bridge above the road) is something of an unsolved problem.
The worst case scenario is that LIDAR is a rapidly falling extra cost for zero benefit? Sounds like it's a good idea to invest into cheap LIDAR just in case the worst case doesn't happen. Even better, you can get a head start by investing in the solution early and abandon it when it has obsolete.
By the way, Tesla engineers secretly trained their vision systems using LIDAR data because that's how you get training data. When Elon Musk found out, he fired them.
Finally, your premise is nonsensical. Using end to end learning for self driving sounds batshit crazy to me. Traffic rules are very rigid and differ depending on the location. Tesla's self driving solution gets you ticketed for traffic violations in China. Machine learning is generally used to "parse" the sensor output into a machine representation and then classical algorithms do most of the work.
The rationale for being against LIDAR seems to be "Elon Musk said LIDAR is bad" and is not based on any deficiency in LIDAR technology.
I don't agree. I think this comes out of necessity. What else a developing country can do in order to develop itself? Everyone believes they are unique and different, I don't agree.
Why is China not an ally to the US other than the fact that it is a growing economy may be too big for US? What happens if US does not want to contain China any more? Are there fundamental issues which will put China and US as enemies?
China is communist and systemically atheist. That's basically it. Americans have always (or at least always since WW2) viewed communism as an existential evil and themselves as chosen by God to eradicate it from the world by any means necessary.
IMO, the difference between East and West is money allocation. In west, especially in the US, there are a lot money in the private sector, they will take the risk and fund moonshot projects; in China, the state will (have to) play that role. Yes, 90% of the projects will fail in the portfolio, that's part of the game.
There’s a NYT’s interview several months back where the journalist phrased it as in America, you have to prove success first to get funded. But in China, funding comes first and the successful companies emerge.
Which isn't at all accurate. Venture capital specifically exists to fund first, in the pursuit of success later - and the US has been by a dramatic margin the leader in doing that for the past ~60-70 years.
China has this process at the city state level. They can leverage their pegged currency to keep their citizen’s purchasing power lower than it should be to fund anything.
A downside is that their consumption economy is low, all their geo neighbors view them as a threat (reducing exports long term), and this contributes to high unemployment as productivity increases.
VC still requires startups to find themselves and prove something first. China basically has a program to do X and anyone can sign up to be a part of that program. All are funded and the winners emerge. I’m broadly generalizing that process but that’s not how VC approaches it.
So instead of "Come pitch us your varied and unique ideas and convince us how our investment will 1000x the returns" it's more like "we need this capability in this industry. Here is a pool of money for you to start figuring it out. We'll focus on the more successful companies over time until they can stand on their own and compete internationally."
I can't imagine why China is so dominant in so many areas when they explicitly plan and invest in capabilities they want to have instead of just relying on the market to "naturally" provide these capabilities or constantly relying on the same handful of inept and corrupt companies to deliver on national needs.
I think thats misunderstanding. China studied the US and learned from the US, the funding is almost the same way except the state funding has objectives other than returns. US has the best financial system, (well most effective and powerful). There is no way China can do better than the US, what we are seeing is that the objectives are very different.
Europe is like the US, money is owned by private but they are old money, not new tech billionaires, and does not take the risks as the US. In China, money is owned by the state, and they are willing to take the risks as the US. In this way, I think China is more similar to US than Europe.
what about its use of being the money of illegal activity, the market value of criminal activities is not a small number, surely it can support bitcoin and other coins.
China does not have a way to deal with crime in Cambodia. It does not have anti-terrorism law to operate in other countries, also it does not want to upset Cambodia or Myanmar government when not necessary. These Chinese operates in Cambodia are mostly on the wanted list anyway, they don't plan to go back to China. In fact, a person leaving China to Cambodia and Myanmar will be checked and make sure their trip is innocent.
Personally I hate these scammers, they have ruined so many people's lives. It seems that it will never go away. Too much money involved. I wish we can launch drone attacks on these places.
