3 ms·

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 syste

by 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."
        justapassenger 3y ago
        I’m sarcastic as it’s hard to assume people argue here in either good faith or have any idea about the problem. Being capable of 90% self driving means it’s not self driving, period. And going to ~100% is extremely, extremely difficult. Anyone comparing those numbers to show Tesla’s superiority (or even being in the same league) just doesn’t understand anything about safety critical systems. What’s better - Airbus 320, which has limited range, or a hypothetical plane, that can fly around the world, and to Mars, but just 90% of the time? And arguments here are especially funny, as Tesla has been openly lying about their abilities and progress for almost 7 years now. And talking about ambitions - design intent defines your ambitions and capabilities of self driving systems on the SAE scale. Tesla openly claims to CA DMV, that they’re developing level 2 driver assist system, not a self driving system.
        3y ago

by zaroth 3y ago

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."
        justapassenger 3y ago
        I’m sarcastic as it’s hard to assume people argue here in either good faith or have any idea about the problem. Being capable of 90% self driving means it’s not self driving, period. And going to ~100% is extremely, extremely difficult. Anyone comparing those numbers to show Tesla’s superiority (or even being in the same league) just doesn’t understand anything about safety critical systems. What’s better - Airbus 320, which has limited range, or a hypothetical plane, that can fly around the world, and to Mars, but just 90% of the time? And arguments here are especially funny, as Tesla has been openly lying about their abilities and progress for almost 7 years now. And talking about ambitions - design intent defines your ambitions and capabilities of self driving systems on the SAE scale. Tesla openly claims to CA DMV, that they’re developing level 2 driver assist system, not a self driving system.
        3y ago