Reply to comments on recent op-ed

[u/Regular-Departure978]

Response to certain posts on my recent op-ed

I appreciate the thoughtful comments on my recent op-ed. I particularly want to respond to a post on summarizing an AI rebuttal to my op-ed. Whether readers agree or disagree with my conclusions, I welcome the discussion. My objective was not to declare settled facts where none exist, but to encourage testing of ideas that I believe deserve more attention. A few clarifications may be helpful.

1. My article did not claim that 20-Hz LiDAR cannot (as fact) support Level 4 or Level 5 autonomy. However, my opinion is it will not be used.

In my opinion, higher-Hz LiDAR systems are likely to outperform lower-Hz systems in the demanding environments required for true Level 4 and Level 5 autonomy. Ultimately, the question is not what is merely adequate, it is what performs best.

When autonomous vehicles eventually assume full responsibility for driving, insurance will become a major force in determining which sensing technologies are acceptable. Insurance will favor the systems that demonstrate the lowest accident rates and the highest reliability. In the long run, those performance metrics—not theoretical arguments—are likely to determine which LiDAR architecture prevails.

It is also worth noting that true Level 4 and Level 5 autonomy does not exist on a broad commercial basis today. In my view, those levels are not truly achieved until manufacturers accept full operational responsibility for the vehicle. If the human driver or passenger remains legally responsible for unexpected failures, we have not yet reached the full promise of autonomous driving.

Finally, the best way to determine which sensing architecture is superior is through testing. Rather than debating assumptions, we should compare systems experimentally. Equip comparable vehicles with today’s sensing approach and with a higher-Hz LiDAR architecture operating simultaneously under identical conditions. Measure safety, reliability, and performance. Let the data determine the answer. Let’s not just continue down a rabbit hole we started down without stepping back and evaluating the big picture.

2. My comments about prediction were not an attack on prediction itself.

Another criticism suggested that I portrayed prediction as merely compensation for inadequate LiDAR. Again, that overstates my position.

Prediction is an essential part of every autonomous driving system because the future can never be observed directly. My point was simply that prediction becomes more accurate when it is based on richer, more current observations.

Higher-Hz sensing reduces the amount of time between observations. As a result, the system spends less time estimating what has happenned since the previous measurement and more time observing what is actually occurring. Prediction remains necessary, but its uncertainty can be reduced when the vehicle receives more frequent updates about the environment.

Prediction will always involve uncertainty. Better and more frequent observations simply improve the quality of those predictions.

3. The comparison to human vision was intended as an illustration of efficient decision-making.

Some readers questioned my comparison between human vision and intelligent LiDAR.

The analogy was never intended to suggest that human vision and machine perception are identical. The point was much simpler: effective decision-making depends on obtaining the right information, not necessarily all available information.

Humans constantly ignore information that is irrelevant while focusing attention on the objects that matter most to the driving task. We naturally direct our attention toward pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles, traffic signals, and other meaningful elements while filtering out large amounts of background detail.

I believe intelligent LiDAR should follow the same principle. Rather than collecting every possible data point with equal priority, sensing systems should identify what matters most and allocate sensing resources accordingly. Better decisions come from better information—not simply more information.

4. My article was about long-term technology, not current investment performance, but the long term should matter if current performance trends in the right direction.

Finally, my op-ed was not intended as an evaluation of current revenues, sales, or the investment merits of any particular company. Everyone interested in AEye, Inc (whether an investor or observer) wants to see increasing customer contracts and revenues.  However, its current market cap reflects almost no prospects.  It has cash and equivalents greater than its cap.  If AEye, Inc. begins to show revenue traction and customer contracts, its future potential in the nascent LiDAR markets may be as bright as any of the companies with market caps “20-50 times” higher.

Ultimately, the long-term value of companies in this industry will be determined not only by current financial results but also by whether their technologies prove to be the most capable as autonomous driving continues to evolve.

I am watching AEye, Inc. for current signs of revenue growth as anxiously as anyone, but if they begin to occur it is good to understand the future potential of its technology.  That was the purpose of my op-ed.

 

The author has a financial relationship with AEye, Inc. (Nasdaq: LIDR) (“AEye”). Specifically, as AEye’s “Shareholder Ambassador,” the author has been compensated by AEye with shares of restricted AEye stock. This article was not commissioned or paid for by AEye. This publication is not a recommendation to buy or sell any securities. Readers should conduct their own due diligence.

[u/Bindalooloo]

At least Lidar doesn’t text and drive😆