4 ms·

> What evidence do you have for your argument? The fact that their software is written only to just follow the car in front, and completely and immediately giv

> What evidence do you have for your argument? The fact that their software is written only to just follow the car in front, and completely and immediately give up if there's no car in front or one cannot be seen due to it being dark or bad weather, on premapped roads. Meanwhile FSD has repeatedly shown that's it's capable of driving without a car in front. You can watch YouTube videos of FSD driving without a car in front for thousands of miles on non-premapped roads. What makes you think Mercedes would be better at doing that?

gmueckl 2y ago
What makes you think that MB doesn't have the same capability, but they aren't willing to ship a half-arsed highly dangerous, people killing feature like some other companies do? Unlike any of their competitors, they assume full legal liability for their car's behavior while Drive Pilot is enabled. MB also has a luxury brand reputation to maintain. When they ship a major feature like that, it absolutely has to work 100% as advertised.
- ivewonyoung 2y ago
  > Unlike any of their competitors, they assume full legal liability for their car's behavior while Drive Pilot is enabled. Source? If someone gets killed when the system is driving, there is no legal framework for you as a driver to escape criminal penalties. Who at MB are they going to jail for it? Can UPS indemnify their drivers from involuntary manslaughter charges?
typewithrhythm 2y ago
I've worked on competitors to the mb system from legacy auto; generally the way we work is make the best possible system for the long term, then limit the odd to meet safety, regulatory, and brand risk requirements. So there will be a system happily running producing target driving paths, but some monitoring system disables in the case with no car in front. I would guess that the mb system is in fact ok without a car in front, but didn't hit their appetite for risk yet.
llamaimperative 2y ago
> What makes you think Mercedes would be better at doing that? I didn't say they are. You're the only one making assumptions here :)

gmueckl 2y ago

What makes you think that MB doesn't have the same capability, but they aren't willing to ship a half-arsed highly dangerous, people killing feature like some other companies do? Unlike any of their competitors, they assume full legal liability for their car's behavior while Drive Pilot is enabled. MB also has a luxury brand reputation to maintain. When they ship a major feature like that, it absolutely has to work 100% as advertised.

ivewonyoung 2y ago
> Unlike any of their competitors, they assume full legal liability for their car's behavior while Drive Pilot is enabled. Source? If someone gets killed when the system is driving, there is no legal framework for you as a driver to escape criminal penalties. Who at MB are they going to jail for it? Can UPS indemnify their drivers from involuntary manslaughter charges?

typewithrhythm 2y ago

I've worked on competitors to the mb system from legacy auto; generally the way we work is make the best possible system for the long term, then limit the odd to meet safety, regulatory, and brand risk requirements. So there will be a system happily running producing target driving paths, but some monitoring system disables in the case with no car in front. I would guess that the mb system is in fact ok without a car in front, but didn't hit their appetite for risk yet.

llamaimperative 2y ago

> What makes you think Mercedes would be better at doing that? I didn't say they are. You're the only one making assumptions here :)