36M views · Mar 15, 2025 · 18:54 · 2 HN recommenders · 13 mentions · discussed 2025–2026
Mark Rober tests whether self-driving cars can be fooled, comparing a lidar-equipped car with a camera-only Tesla in scenarios including a painted Wile E. Coyote wall and smoke.
Why Hacker News points people here: HN uses it as the reference demonstration in lidar versus camera debates, though some critics fault its methodology and style.
“LiDAR passed all of them, while Tesla’s camera-only approach failed half.”HN comment, 2025
“Check Mark Rober's video, published one month ago, "Can You Fool A Self Driving Car?”
Compares a Tesla with lidar-equipped cars.
My opinion is that skipping lidar is nonsense. Check Mark Rober's video, published one month ago, "Can You Fool A Self Driving Car?" where he compares a Tesla with other Lidar-equipped cars: this video
“Here's a good demonstration why LIDAR SHOULD be implemented instead of what Tesla tries to sell”
Demonstrates why lidar should be used.
Here's a good demonstration why LIDAR SHOULD be implemented instead of what Tesla tries to sell: this video
“To skip the intro and go to the car tests, jump to 8:11.”
Test results: lidar car passed all six, Tesla failed three.
To skip the intro and go to the car tests, jump to 8:11. this video Spoiler for the results: The Luminar car (using LiDAR) passed all six tests. The Tesla (using only cameras) failed half of them: fog, rain, painted mural.
“He disabled autopilot right before the crash.”
He disabled autopilot right before the crash. Before crash - you can see autopilot is on with rainbow road visualization, then cuts into his reaction, then at crash it's disabled - this video Caveat: Autopilot is known to disable itself right before the crash (if it senses it) tho. I doubt this is the case because he would've obviously mentioned.
“it can crash into a will e coyote style wall on autopilot”
To be fair, we don’t need a new product, a tesla can do the same[1]. With AIs becoming more powerful and expanding to new areas, it makes even more sense to avoid businesses that are consistently user hostile. I wonder if anti tesla protests and related bad pr will contribute to increased consumer awareness around the topic. [1]: e.g. it can crash into a will e coyote style wall on autopilot: this video
“hilariously, there's already a video demonstrating this exact scenario”
Demonstrates a car driving into a painted wall.
> For instance, being distracted, poor reaction times, or not being able to monitor all angles simultaneously. As a pitch for self driving, it's going to be a long time before I trust a computer to do the above better than I do. At the very least adding sensors I don't have access to will give me assurance the car won't drive into a wall with a road painted on it. I don't know how on earth you'd market self-driving as competent without being absurdly conservative about what functionality you claim to be able to deliver. Aggregate statistics about safety aren't going to make me feel emotionally stable when I am familiar with how jerky and skittish the driving is under visually confusing driving conditions. Perhaps vision is sufficient, but it seems hopelessly optimistic to expect to be able to pitch it without some core improvement over human driving (aside from my ability to take the hand off the wheel while driving). Edit: hilariously, there's already a video demonstrating this exact scenario: this video
“what everyone missed from that viral Mark Rober video [0] was not the Looney Toons wall hit but the fucking kid in the smoke.”
The overlooked result is the child in smoke, which cameras cannot see through.
As someone who's done a lot of computer vision, it is insane to skip it. And it's sad because what everyone missed from that viral Mark Rober video [0] was not the Looney Toons wall hit but the fucking kid in the smoke. Add all the cameras and AI you want, you ain't changing the laws of physics: visible light doesn't penetrate smoke. But radar does. Every (traditional) engineer knows that safe systems have redundancy. That safe systems have redundancy through differing modalities. Use cameras, but also use radar, lidar, and even millimeter wave. Using just cameras isn't just tying one hand behind your back, it's shooting yourself in the kneecap afterwards [0] this video
“If there simply isn’t enough visual information, vision-only will fail.”
AI isn’t magic. If there isn’t enough information in the inputs, you can’t expect reliable results. It’s the same principle in all of software: garbage in, garbage out. If there simply isn’t enough visual information, vision-only will fail. this video
“LiDAR passed all of them, while Tesla’s camera-only approach failed half.”
Field tests: lidar passed all, Tesla camera-only failed half.
Indeed. Mark Rober did some field tests on that exact difference. LiDAR passed all of them, while Tesla’s camera-only approach failed half. this video
“See a Tesla fail against a Wile E. Coyote-inspired mural which humans perceive”
Tesla failing against a Wile E. Coyote mural.
> Humans use only cameras. Not true. Humans also interpret the environment in 3D space. See a Tesla fail against a Wile E. Coyote-inspired mural which humans perceive: this video
“optics alone can be easily spoofed as any fan of the Wile E. Coyote has known for decades.”
I am just some schmoe, but optics alone can be easily spoofed as any fan of the Wile E. Coyote has known for decades. [0] What's crazy to me is that anyone would think that anything short of ASI could take image based world understanding to true FSD. Tesla tried to replicate human response, ~"because humans only have eyes" but largely without even stereoscopic vision, ffs. [0] this video
“I dislike the fact that Mark's videos appear to increasingly borrow from the Mr Beast style, which is very distracting.”
Here is the original Mark Rober video - this video I dislike the fact that Mark's videos appear to increasingly borrow from the Mr Beast style, which is very distracting. There's also the fact that half the video has nothing to do with cars in the first place. The main result here is not surprising - Tesla's vehicles are plagued by a litany of poor engineering decisions, many at a fundamental level. Not using Lidar for depth detection is beyond stupid.
“he makes all these wild claims that you can't solve X issue without LIDAR and tests an old version of Autopilot.”
It's just like Mark Robers video[1], where he makes all these wild claims that you can't solve X issue without LIDAR and tests an old version of Autopilot. When another user correctly tests with the latest hardware and software, it passes the test[2]. [1] this video [2] link
