4 ms·

A PR lie. Watch a Tesla FSD 12.3.4 video, then one of Mercedes and see for yourself.

tempestn 2y ago
Tesla requires the driver to pay attention to the road at all times, even with "FSD". (And having tried it, you would definitely want to do so.) This system does not have that requirement, on roads where it's supported. What's the lie?
- thibran 2y ago
  They are misleading the public in thinking that Mercedes is a leader in autonomous driving, but they are not. They are, including all other legacy car companies, so far behind Tesla, that they should be ashamed.
lesuorac 2y ago
Which video? Tesla still has this one [1] up where the "not required driver" had to save the vehicle after it ran off the road into fences and etc numerous times [2] [3]. [1]: https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot [2]: https://www.classaction.org/media/matsko-v-tesla-inc-et-al.pdf https://www.classaction.org/media/matsko-v-tesla-inc-et-al.p... [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/06/technology/tesla-autopilot-elon-musk.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/06/technology/tesla-autopilo...
HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
FSD ver. 12 is a massive improvement over ver. 11, but not something I'd want to trust my life on. The vision system alone is reason not to trust it (it's just a "multiple choice" image classifier). The actual driving in ver. 12 (now neural net vs C++) looks much smoother. The continuing problem is that at the end of the day these are just rule-based systems with zero intelligence. They'll work fine 99.9% of the time, and then do something life-threateningly inappropriate in the 0.1% of cases they were not trained to handle. The only way to make these things as safe as a human driver is to base them on human-level AGI, which is still a long ways off in the future. I don't know if Musk is planning to add his Grok "AI" into the mix, but having a hallucinating chatbot as backup system or driver is not my idea of safety.
sschueller 2y ago
Mercedes stands behind thir L3 and takes the responsibility for it taking the liability away from the driver. Tesla can not do this no matter what they claim they can do. When their system fails is fails spectacularly and no company in their right mind would want to be liable for that. It doesn't matter what Tesla can do in 80% of the time when it can't do it 20% of the time.
Veserv 2y ago
Okay, https://vimeo.com/933054717/e2c3a7c650 https://vimeo.com/933054717/e2c3a7c650 Consistently running down stationary children in the middle of a empty, well-lit road is not exactly what I am looking for in a autonomous vehicle. In my mind that qualifies as somewhere between criminal negligence and depraved indifference to human life. It does, however, remain to be seen how the Mercedes system fares in its operating domain, so it is prudent to reserve positive judgement until more evidence emerges.

Tesla requires the driver to pay attention to the road at all times, even with "FSD". (And having tried it, you would definitely want to do so.) This system does not have that requirement, on roads where it's supported. What's the lie?

thibran 2y ago
They are misleading the public in thinking that Mercedes is a leader in autonomous driving, but they are not. They are, including all other legacy car companies, so far behind Tesla, that they should be ashamed.

lesuorac 2y ago

Which video? Tesla still has this one [1] up where the "not required driver" had to save the vehicle after it ran off the road into fences and etc numerous times [2] [3]. [1]: https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot [2]: https://www.classaction.org/media/matsko-v-tesla-inc-et-al.pdf https://www.classaction.org/media/matsko-v-tesla-inc-et-al.p... [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/06/technology/tesla-autopilot-elon-musk.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/06/technology/tesla-autopilo...

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago

FSD ver. 12 is a massive improvement over ver. 11, but not something I'd want to trust my life on. The vision system alone is reason not to trust it (it's just a "multiple choice" image classifier). The actual driving in ver. 12 (now neural net vs C++) looks much smoother. The continuing problem is that at the end of the day these are just rule-based systems with zero intelligence. They'll work fine 99.9% of the time, and then do something life-threateningly inappropriate in the 0.1% of cases they were not trained to handle. The only way to make these things as safe as a human driver is to base them on human-level AGI, which is still a long ways off in the future. I don't know if Musk is planning to add his Grok "AI" into the mix, but having a hallucinating chatbot as backup system or driver is not my idea of safety.

sschueller 2y ago

Mercedes stands behind thir L3 and takes the responsibility for it taking the liability away from the driver. Tesla can not do this no matter what they claim they can do. When their system fails is fails spectacularly and no company in their right mind would want to be liable for that. It doesn't matter what Tesla can do in 80% of the time when it can't do it 20% of the time.

Veserv 2y ago

Okay, https://vimeo.com/933054717/e2c3a7c650 https://vimeo.com/933054717/e2c3a7c650 Consistently running down stationary children in the middle of a empty, well-lit road is not exactly what I am looking for in a autonomous vehicle. In my mind that qualifies as somewhere between criminal negligence and depraved indifference to human life. It does, however, remain to be seen how the Mercedes system fares in its operating domain, so it is prudent to reserve positive judgement until more evidence emerges.