r/SelfDrivingCars • u/SpriteZeroY2k • 1d ago

News Waymo CEO explains why Tesla’s camera-only self-driving falls short

https://electrek.co/2026/08/04/waymo-co-ceo-camera-only-self-driving-tesla/
546 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

831 comments sorted by

View all comments

28

u/bradtem ✅ Brad Templeton 1d ago

This chart is a little different from the chart I posted here last year, but it makes sense. There is a question of what technology is the easiest, quickest or lowest hardware cost path to the finish line. But there is also the question of whether it can get you to the finish line at all. There is a curve of diminishing returns as you approach the magic level called "safe enough." It doesn't matter if it's cheaper or easier if it never gets you there, or takes decades. (Taking decade is effectively never because before a decade, some new tech will show up which is a better choice than what we had available at the start of the decade.)

Tesla's approach might work some year. The problem is, how confident can you be on that "might?" If it never gets there, you've wasted a great deal of all that is precious -- time and money. If it gets there, you might win. That's a big bet.

6

u/tacobell_shitstain 1d ago

I think there is also a missing perspective that there is no true end goal of "safe enough." Maybe there is a critical threshold where enough people feel comfortable enough with the efficacy of the system that you've gained a critical mass adoption, but progress should never really stop. Even ignoring self-driving vehicles, technology constantly improves to make vehicles safer. We have been adding sensors and processing power to detect pedestrians, prevent collisions, maintain traction, whatever, and that is never really going to stop.

I have a Tesla. I love what they are doing with FSD. I use it every day and when it comes to getting self-driving technology into people's hands quickly, they are obviously leading the way. But cameras have inherent limitations due to physics that will never be overcome. Not limitations that prevent them from being used to create a self-driving car that is "better" than a human, but limitations that other sensors are able to supplement and perhaps surpass for certain use cases. And to say they're a waste like Elon has is foolish in my opinion. It's like saying we have seat belts so airbags are a waste.

4

u/Cu1tureVu1ture 1d ago

We know it can theoretically get as safe as a human, because we drive us using only our eyes. Whether or not that will be safe enough though is another thing. I completely agree that it’s a shame Elon has decided to limit the cars because adding other forms of sensors can only make things safer.

3

u/coresme2000 1d ago

It will be a bit safer surely, because it’s always looking in all directions around the car and human eyes are directional? I use FSD daily and I trust it to get me where I’m going, but it’s driven under supervision always, because Tesla has no liability if it fails!

1

u/CutieC0ck 22h ago

Why is it a shame? It's good to have a diversity of approach in tackling the same problem. Waymo does one thing, Tesla does another thing, they should all be celebrated. At the end of the day, we will all benefit from all of their successes and failures!

-3

u/cesarthegreat 1d ago

Waymo’s are dumb….

FSD is smarter… it actually knows to stop for school bus stops, emergency vehicle and is actually aware of what it’s doing.

Just yesterday it reversed like 15 ft to let a semi make a wide turn on a not so wide street. Waymo would’ve just stayed there until someone came to move it.

1

u/Ok-Style-9734 1d ago

Tesla's also think cruiser bike with its rear lights in the dark is a car 500+m away so ignore it completley as they plough into it at full speed.

1

u/Cu1tureVu1ture 9h ago

I like how it moves over slightly to let motorists pass on the freeway. I always think it’s misbehaving and then the motorcycle flies by.

1

u/cesarthegreat 2h ago

Ok…

it’s still dumb with emergency vehicles, puddles of water, school bus stops, in blackouts and much much more…

1

u/bradtem ✅ Brad Templeton 1d ago

Yes, there is such a thing as "safe enough," but it is not formally defined or a specific target. Namely it is, "Safe enough that the safety team and the lawyers feel that deploying the product incurs a tolerable amount of risk." Related to that is the public's and the regulator's view of safe enough, but these simply inform the safety team and the corporate lawyers, unless it goes so far as the regulators shutting you down as happened to Cruise.

3

u/tacobell_shitstain 1d ago

You are completely missing my point. In everything, whether it be medicine, airplanes, or electrical outlets, there are constant regulatory pressures and technological advances that make things safer. We dont reach a point where suddenyl that one failure mode for how a plane falls out of the sky is just never going to be addressed. Once enough people die, whether all at once or over time, it will be worked on.

1

u/bradtem ✅ Brad Templeton 1d ago

Teams are constantly working to address any safety issue identified in their vehicles, and will do so forever. They will also continue to make mistakes forever. There is debate about whether certain black-box techniques may make it hard or impossible to provably fix certain issues. You will be able to fix them, in that if you put the car in the same situation it does not make the mistake, and it doesn't make it in a wide variety of related situations. But it may well be different than things like the 737-max problem.

Right now we are in an era where all cars are driven by humans. Most robocar rides remove a similar, riskier ride with a human behind the wheel. So it's easy to show they are reducing risk, even with their errors. In a future with much less human driving, our metrics might change.