Waymo 首席执行官解释为何特斯拉纯视觉自动驾驶方案存在不足
Waymo CEO explains why Tesla’s camera-only self-driving falls short

原始链接: https://electrek.co/2026/08/04/waymo-co-ceo-camera-only-self-driving-tesla/

Waymo 联席首席执行官 Dmitri Dolgov 近日对特斯拉所推崇的“纯视觉”自动驾驶方案提出了质疑。Dolgov 承认,摄像头在驾驶辅助系统中能够模拟人类视觉,但他认为这种方案存在“安全上限”,无法达到真正超越人类水平的无人驾驶可靠性。 Dolgov 指出,实现完全自动驾驶需要可靠性达到“指数级的九”(即极高的安全等级)。虽然摄像头在简单路况下表现出色,但在黑暗、强光或有物理遮挡等边缘场景中,其感知能力会大幅减弱,甚至彻底“失明”。相比之下,Waymo 采用的融合多种传感器(摄像头、雷达和激光雷达)的方案提供了强大的冗余性,使系统能够在纯视觉方案失效的极端条件下依然保持安全。 Dolgov 认为,“纯视觉”方案的拥护者往往将早期的快速进展误认为是通往自动驾驶的线性路径,却忽略了实现最终、最关键的安全阶段才是最困难的。虽然特斯拉坚持单靠摄像头,但 Waymo 在 2.2 亿英里的无人驾驶里程中证明了其具有显著更高的安全表现。归根结底,随着激光雷达和雷达的成本随硬件迭代而大幅下降,认为“纯视觉是唯一务实选择”的观点,正迅速失去其技术和经济支撑。

这次 Hacker News 的讨论围绕着 Waymo 的传感器重型方案(激光雷达)与特斯拉的纯视觉策略之间的争论展开。 Waymo 的领导层认为,仅仅因为目前的成本问题而排斥激光雷达是目光短浅的,因为随着每一代硬件的迭代,传感器价格正在迅速下降。他们主张,仅依赖摄像头会限制性能,因为激光雷达能够提供即时且可靠的深度感知,从而弥补纯视觉系统在计算能力上的局限性以及面对强光、雾天或阴影等环境干扰时的脆弱性。 与之相对,评论者对于传感器的必要性各执一词。一些人认为,既然人类仅凭视觉就能安全驾驶,那么摄像头最终也应足以实现自动驾驶。另一些人则认为,最理想的解决方案很可能涉及传感器融合路径,以平衡成本与安全需求。讨论中很大一部分观点强调,最终决定哪种技术胜出的将是公共安全和监管审批,而不仅仅是消费者的偏好。人们普遍认为,这其中的核心问题在于:激光雷达能否实现大规模普及所需的低成本,或者基于摄像头的系统能否达到完全自动驾驶所需的安全阈值。
相关文章

原文

Waymo co-CEO Dmitri Dolgov laid out the clearest technical case yet for why cameras alone can’t take a self-driving system to full autonomy, arguing that “weak sensing” hits a safety ceiling long before it reaches superhuman performance.

He never said the word Tesla. But camera-only is Tesla’s entire bet, and this was a direct shot at it.

The sensor debate, from someone with 220 million driverless miles

Dolgov made the comments in a talk at Y Combinator’s Startup School, walking through the lessons Waymo has learned building its driver over close to two decades. He put the sensor question on the table plainly: “there’s been a long-standing debate about what kind of sensors do you actually need for autonomous driving.”

His answer draws the line that camera-only advocates tend to skip right past. “Humans of course can drive with just eyes, so there’s that proof of existence,” he said. “If the goal were to just approximately match human performance or to build an assist product, that’s a very reasonable way to go.”

Advertisement - scroll for more content

Then the catch. If you’re targeting full autonomy and strongly superhuman performance, he said, “you find that weak sensing just leads to a safety curve that flattens out way too early.”

That’s the whole argument in a couple of sentences. Cameras can match a human. They can power a driver-assist product. Dolgov’s point is that they top out below the bar a car has to clear to drive with nobody behind the wheel.

Unless you do it for demonstration purposes in a geo-fenced area with limited speed and low availability to limit danger through less mileage.

Why Waymo runs cameras, lidar, and radar together

Waymo uses three sensing types, and Dolgov spent real time on why. Cameras give you high resolution and color, but they’re passive, and they degrade in darkness and glare. Lidar directly measures the 3D structure of the world. Radar punches through fog, rain, and snow, and reads velocity directly with Doppler. Lidar and radar are active sensors, so they see just as well in pitch darkness or straight into a blinding sunset.

This isn’t redundancy for its own sake. “These different sensing modalities, they’re not backups to each other,” Dolgov said. Each one runs its own encoder, and the data fuses into a single view of the world that he says is “vastly superior to what you get with any one sensor.”

He backed it with cases where a camera goes blind. A dust storm in Phoenix, where the camera sees almost nothing while lidar cleanly picks out a pedestrian at the roadside. People hopping a concrete barrier onto a road at night. Kids chasing dogs across a pitch-black street with no headlights or streetlights on them. In each one, the camera feed is close to useless and the lidar view is clean.

Then there’s the failure case camera-only can’t engineer its way around: something physically covering the lens. A single leaf on a sensor can bring a robot to a full stop, Dolgov said, before showing a Waymo that caught a tree branch its wipers couldn’t shake and used its other sensors to drive itself safely back to the depot.

The ‘nines’ problem

Under the sensor argument sits a math argument, and it’s the part that should worry anyone extrapolating from a camera-only demo. Reliability lives on what Dolgov called an “exponential ladder of nines.” Tesla CEO Elon Musk calls it the “march of the nines.” Getting to 90% or 99% is the easy part. Every additional nine of reliability takes roughly ten times more effort than the one before it.

So the trap is picking the technology with the fastest early ramp, the one that makes the best demo, projecting that steep slope forward, and then hitting a plateau “way before the performance that is required by your product.” A demo might need one nine. A driver-assist product needs a few. A car with kids in the back and nobody driving needs a whole stack of them.

Dolgov also pushed back on the one knock that camera-only fans always reach for: cost. Waymo is on its sixth generation of hardware, and he said each generation has drastically cut the price. Betting against sensors like lidar on today’s prices, he warned, means betting on “a number that has a fairly short shelf life.”

Where Tesla fits

Tesla is the loudest bet on the other side of this debate. It pulled radar from its cars in 2021 and dropped ultrasonic sensors in 2022, going all-in on cameras with “Tesla Vision.” Elon Musk has called lidar “a fool’s errand” and said anyone relying on it is “doomed.” Tesla’s robotaxi service, which launched in Austin in 2025, runs on cameras alone. We’ve covered the Tesla Vision versus lidar fight in depth before.

So far the results line up with the exact ceiling Dolgov described. Tesla’s own robotaxi data shows a crash rate about three times worse than human drivers, even with a human safety monitor in the front seat. Musk has claimed FSD is safer than humans, release after release, and the data hasn’t backed him up yet, even after being heavily massaged by Tesla.

Waymo is running the numbers Dolgov says camera-only can’t reach. Its latest safety report, based on 220 million rider-only miles, shows 94% fewer serious-injury crashes than human drivers would cause over the same distance, roughly 17 times better. Waymo is now serving around half a million paid trips a week across 15 US cities and is scaling toward a 1-million-weekly-rides target, even as Musk insists Waymo “never had a chance” against Tesla.

Tesla recently confirmed it has accumulated 380,000 driverless miles over the past year since launching its robotaxi. Waymo’s driverless service does that in a day.

Electrek’s Take

This is the most useful version of the lidar-versus-cameras argument I’ve seen, because Dolgov doesn’t pretend cameras are useless. He concedes the thing Tesla fans always lead with. Yes, humans drive with two eyes, and yes, cameras alone can build a genuinely good driver-assist product. That’s not the disagreement. The disagreement is whether “good enough to help a human drive” ever becomes “good enough to remove the human,” and his answer is no, because the sensing tops out before you get the last few nines.

Now, Tesla would point to its active Robotaxi service as an example of “removing the human”, but Dolgov also said that camera-only is also good for a demo, and that’s basically what Tesla’s Robotaxi service is right now.

Tesla just confirmed that unsupervised miles only added up to 380,000 miles to date. That’s basically a demo at low speeds in small geo-fenced areas in Texas.

The nines framing is the part Tesla investors should sit with. Tesla has spent years on the steep, easy part of the curve, where every FSD release looks a lot better than the last, and Musk keeps drawing that slope straight up to robotaxis. Dolgov is describing precisely why that line breaks: the early gains are cheap and the tail is brutal, and the tail is the entire safety problem once you’re driving millions of miles a week.

The cost point matters too, because “lidar is too expensive” is the last technical leg the camera-only case has to stand on. Waymo’s on its sixth hardware generation and says cost is dropping fast. If sensors keep getting cheaper while camera-only keeps hitting the same wall, “cameras are the pragmatic choice” gets weaker every year.

We are hearing that Waymo is close to having its entire package (car + Waymo sensor suite and driver) at around $60,000. At that point, the fact that you have a system that works at scale is way more important than a ~$20,000 cost advantage on the car.

If you’re relying on a car for your daily driving, powering it at home with solar can cut your fueling costs to almost nothing. With electricity rates up almost 10% last year and expected to keep climbing, going solar is one of the best ways to protect yourself against rising costs. And with lease and PPA options, you can do it with zero upfront cost and start saving immediately. If you want to find the best deal, check out EnergySage. It’s a free service with hundreds of pre-vetted installers competing for your business, so you save 20 to 30% compared to going it alone. No sales calls until you pick an installer. Get your free quotes here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com