> For example, one of the distance estimation algorithms used in the Cornell paper, developed by two researchers at Taiwan's National Chiao Tung University, relied on a pair of cameras and the parallax effect. It compared two images taken from different angles and observed how objects' positions differ between the image—the larger the shift, the closer an object is.

The shift or disparity between sensors doesn't really matter. We've known that wider convergence angles begets better object point estimation since the 70s. Yet, even the KITTI dataset doesn't attempt to take advantage of this, and uses two rather average cameras with a (relatively) short baseline of 0.06m (see: http://www.cvlibs.net/datasets/kitti/setup.php). That's 6cm!!! You have the entire width of the car to separate these cameras by.

> This technique only works if the software correctly matches a pixel in one image with the corresponding pixel in the other image. If the software gets this wrong, then distance estimates can be wildly off.

Again, yeah. But the problem is twofold: you need to detect / match similar points between two images, but the fundamental setup of your system can limit your precision and accuracy. Use a wider-angle lens with better convergent geometry. Every publication based on the KITTI dataset doesn't even address some of the most basic criticisms from photogrammetry.

Which leads to probably why LiDAR gives such a distinct advantage in most of these data sets. You solve two problems:

1) You solve the correspondence problem trivially because LiDAR doesn't need to match points between cameras, and there's no baseline / convergence criteria that the final point precision depends on.

2) Robust geometric data is well-modelled, well understood, and provides an easier criteria for machine learning systems (particularly ones running over KITTI, as in the article) to converge on than just using stereo-imagery with a baseline of 6cm. You get the scale of the system for free and your calibration troubles are whisked away as LiDAR systems tend to be better-calibrated and more stable than most lens systems or configurations you'll find in the cheap off-the-shelf cameras that many autonomous driving startups are using.

I guess I come off a little negative by looking at this, but my first reaction to Musk saying that nobody should or will want to ever use LiDAR for this is that he doesn't know a damn thing about what he's talking about.