5 ms·

Yes. One product works and other doesn’t. And one that doesn’t work is better and for sure will improve and work in the future? And one that does work won’t im

Yes. One product works and other doesn’t. And one that doesn’t work is better and for sure will improve and work in the future? And one that does work won’t improve?

simondotau 3y ago
I don’t know who you’re replying to, because that’s certainly nothing to do with what I said.
zaroth 3y ago
It’s bizarre and absurd to claim a system that’s driven billions of miles “doesn’t work”. I really like how Simondotau put it. These are wildly different systems. Benchmarks can always be rigged and I see this move by Mercedes no differently. Having failed to compete with Tesla on actual self driving technology, they concocted a minimally useful system that could check a box in their marketing material. Mercedes, here, is an ostrich. My primary benchmark for how useful the system is would be how many passenger-miles its driven. We’ll be waiting a long time for Mercedes to be bragging about that metric.
- justapassenger 3y ago
  Because it’s very very simple. One system is self driving and other isn’t, no matter how you try to spin it.
  - zaroth 3y ago
    One is a universal L2 autonomous driving system and one highly limited L3 autonomous driving system. They are both considered forms of autonomous driving. [1] - https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-levels.html https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-level...
    - justapassenger 3y ago
      One legally drives the car for you. Other doesn’t.
      - zaroth 3y ago
        Actually they are both legally autonomously driving according to SAE. You should read up on it! “SAE International is the world’s leading authority in mobility standards development.” Forgive me if I’ll take their internationally recognized standards over your characterization. Certainly only one of the systems accepts liability for accidents while it’s enabled, but liability for accidents is just one component of autonomous driving, and not the most important one. The most important one is clearly the percentage availability of the system across varying roads and conditions. An L3 or L4 system that is geofenced to work on a few miles of select private roads might be a “world first” while simultaneously being of little practical value. In essence, a pissing contest or vanity metric.
        justapassenger 3y ago
        Ok, you’ve convinced me. I’ll go drive in FSD Tesla and be certain that you and Musk will personally guarantee safety of it and pickup the bill if something happens. Also, please actually go read the standard, and talk about design intent, and which main way to differentiate the systems.
        simondotau 3y ago
        Your sarcastic retort is not consistent with anything anyone is arguing. Nobody has said FSD is ready to be relied upon, least of all Tesla, who still calls it a "beta". This isn't what I said. This isn't what zaroth said. Nobody said it. So why did you say it? I realise this isn't a simple argument, but let me try again: DRIVE PILOT is ~100% capable of limited self-driving on ~0.01% of roads (a curated set of slow highways in California, unless rainy, foggy or dark). FSD Beta is ~90% capable of full self-driving on ~99% of roads. Different ambitions at different levels of completion. The comparisons you've been trying to make are, I'm sorry to say, fanboy-esque. "N64 Mario would definitely beat 16-bit Sonic in a game of tennis."

Yes. One product works and other doesn’t. And one that doesn’t work is better and for sure will improve and work in the future? And one that does work won’t improve?

simondotau 3y ago

I don’t know who you’re replying to, because that’s certainly nothing to do with what I said.

zaroth 3y ago

It’s bizarre and absurd to claim a system that’s driven billions of miles “doesn’t work”. I really like how Simondotau put it. These are wildly different systems. Benchmarks can always be rigged and I see this move by Mercedes no differently. Having failed to compete with Tesla on actual self driving technology, they concocted a minimally useful system that could check a box in their marketing material. Mercedes, here, is an ostrich. My primary benchmark for how useful the system is would be how many passenger-miles its driven. We’ll be waiting a long time for Mercedes to be bragging about that metric.

justapassenger 3y ago
Because it’s very very simple. One system is self driving and other isn’t, no matter how you try to spin it.
- zaroth 3y ago
  One is a universal L2 autonomous driving system and one highly limited L3 autonomous driving system. They are both considered forms of autonomous driving. [1] - https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-levels.html https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-level...
  - justapassenger 3y ago
    One legally drives the car for you. Other doesn’t.
    - zaroth 3y ago
      Actually they are both legally autonomously driving according to SAE. You should read up on it! “SAE International is the world’s leading authority in mobility standards development.” Forgive me if I’ll take their internationally recognized standards over your characterization. Certainly only one of the systems accepts liability for accidents while it’s enabled, but liability for accidents is just one component of autonomous driving, and not the most important one. The most important one is clearly the percentage availability of the system across varying roads and conditions. An L3 or L4 system that is geofenced to work on a few miles of select private roads might be a “world first” while simultaneously being of little practical value. In essence, a pissing contest or vanity metric.
      - justapassenger 3y ago
        Ok, you’ve convinced me. I’ll go drive in FSD Tesla and be certain that you and Musk will personally guarantee safety of it and pickup the bill if something happens. Also, please actually go read the standard, and talk about design intent, and which main way to differentiate the systems.
        simondotau 3y ago
        Your sarcastic retort is not consistent with anything anyone is arguing. Nobody has said FSD is ready to be relied upon, least of all Tesla, who still calls it a "beta". This isn't what I said. This isn't what zaroth said. Nobody said it. So why did you say it? I realise this isn't a simple argument, but let me try again: DRIVE PILOT is ~100% capable of limited self-driving on ~0.01% of roads (a curated set of slow highways in California, unless rainy, foggy or dark). FSD Beta is ~90% capable of full self-driving on ~99% of roads. Different ambitions at different levels of completion. The comparisons you've been trying to make are, I'm sorry to say, fanboy-esque. "N64 Mario would definitely beat 16-bit Sonic in a game of tennis."