Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mercedes-Benz says Level 3 self-driving option ready to roll

thedetroitbureau.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 410 posts

Re: Mercedes-Benz says Level 3 self-driving option ready to roll

#211

Post by johndfsgdgdfg »

verisimi wrote: post #81
pigtailgirl wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe some people just agree with this? (a) Findings.--Congress finds that-- (1) alcohol-impaired driving fatalities represent approximately \1/3\ of all highway fatalities in the United States each year; (2) in 2019, there were 10,142 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in the United States involving drivers with a blood alcohol concentration level of .08 or higher, and 68 percent of the crashes that resulted in tho…

I think its possible to make an argument for lots of things, in the name of safety. That it should be impossible to have anonymity online, etc because of child abuse, or terrorism, or some other action. The safety argument cannot balance the fact that we also need freedom of speech and thought. We are heading into a world where the power balance is going to become so wildly asymmetrical - the government will know eve…

> I think its possible to make an argument for lots of things, in the name of safety.

I think the word you are looking for is `Nanny State` [1]. People's opinions on issues like this always tend to be based on political tribalism. If it's from my political party, then they are so amazing that they care about other human beings so much. If it's a political party I am opposed to, how dare they infringe on our freedom.

It's very hard to find good faith discussion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state

Re: Mercedes-Benz says Level 3 self-driving option ready to roll

#212

Post by ghostpepper »

stavros wrote: post #182
doctor_eval wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the parent as meaning to say that because Mercedes will be liable, even 1,000 accidents will be a real problem for them. This is a good thing because it shows that Mercedes expects a very low number of accidents while the system is enabled. Mercedes accepting the risk like this is a massive step forward for these reasons. It sets a precedent that hopefully others will follow. They wouldn't transfer the risk if…

I guess, maybe I misunderstood. I was just surprised to read "it's better to have a ton of deaths, rather than a few deaths we're on the hook for".

From the company's point of view this is correct reasoning. The sooner people realize companies do not have any responsibility to be moral the better

Re: Mercedes-Benz says Level 3 self-driving option ready to roll

#213

Post by filoleg »

another_story wrote: post #77
filoleg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think Teslas driven [...] can't be remotely commandeered or disabled, then I have a bridge to sell you. I wonder how this is even remotely possible, given that Teslas can easily operate fully offline (which they frequently do in areas with poor cell reception). You can just build a small faraday cage encasing the modem so that it cannot receive signal, and you are good to go. Also, I don't think that the dri…

The point they're making is that this is coming and the groundwork is already being laid, both legally and technologically.

> The point they're making is that this is coming and the groundwork is already being laid, both legally and technologically.

So they are basically claiming that something is a problem, even though it is something that's straight up currently physically possible (but someone who reads that statement without knowing the actual details wouldn't know that it isn't currently possible)?

Disingenuous at best. Especially given that the parent comment said none of that. They essentially mocked people who believe that it isn't possible, and when they got pointed out that it isn't actually physically possible right now, the response is "well, not right now, but look at future possibilities!".

Re: Mercedes-Benz says Level 3 self-driving option ready to roll

#214

Post by clouddrover »

simondotau wrote: post #192
themacguffinman wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the misunderstanding. Most of what you quoted is irrelevant, he said two key sentences: "And so actually, when you think about it, in order to solve full self-driving, we have to solve neural nets and cameras to a degree of a capability that is on par with, and will really exceeds humans. And I think we will achieve that this year." The meaning seems pretty clear. He says they will achieve "that", "that"…

I disagree that most of it is irrelevant. I think they are critical to understanding his point. Why are you so desperate to cherry pick? This isn’t Twitter, there’s no 240 character limit on replies.

He isn't making any point. The only thing to understand is that Musk is merely continuing his track record of lying about where Tesla is at with its supposed "full self-driving".

He's been lying about it for nine years: https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-promises-full-self-driving-ne...

Five years ago Tesla claimed all its cars "have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver". That was a lie too: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now...

Whatever happened to those 1 million robotaxis that were supposed to be on the road by 2020? Yet another lie: https://www.thedrive.com/news/38129/elon-musk-promised-1-mil...

Re: Mercedes-Benz says Level 3 self-driving option ready to roll

#216

Post by Archelaos »

MBCook wrote: post #93
a-dub wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it appears you're correct... but it is a much easier problem and one that i argue has massive bang for the buck _today_. robotaxis will probably happen at scale some day. but for now, "nap through bad traffic mode" would be pretty excellent both in terms of safety and utility.

Phantom traffic jams are so common, where things aren’t moving as fast as they should because people keep slamming on their brakes and scaring the people behind them (who in turn do the same). Even if the original reason was good I imagine it makes a lot of real life traffic jams worse. But if the cars are all driving themselves, wouldn’t they avoid that? I wonder if traffic jams would get smaller just from the lack…

Some years ago, I read an article claiming the opposite. I could not find it again, but the main arguments, as I remember them where, that a) if self-driving cars drive according to the law, they drive slower and with greater distance from the car in front than human drivers, and b) for people to feel comfortable inside a self-driving car, the car must accelarate and break more smoothly than a human driver does, who actively participats in what is going on around him or her. The maximum throughput of a road would therefore become smaller and thus, ceteris paribus, traffic jams become more frequent.

Re: Mercedes-Benz says Level 3 self-driving option ready to roll

#217

Post by wfhordie »

zip1234 wrote: post #204
verisimi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm being downvoted - but this is the reality of what will happen. Who wants that sort of monitoring when they are driving? Is this a consumer-driven feature? Or is this more government management - leveraging technology to micro-manage every detail of our lives - only allowing good citizens travel privileges etc? We are sleep walking into a dystopia, and I get downvoted for stating the obvious! Seriously - your gove…

The fact is that loads of people drive drunk, drive illegally, and drive dangerously--on public roads. Police enforcement clearly doesn't work. Automated enforcement would. Why should people get to endanger others? The leading cause of death for children and teens almost every year is 'motor vehicle crashes' and it wasn't the children and teens causing those.

>Why should people get to endanger others?

This is a dangerous frame for this argument. "Get to" implies a "right," or that the action is condoned somehow. It's not. Not everything bad in the world needs to be prevented by government action. We could stop all traffic deaths today by banning cars. We could stop all forms of obesity by making everyone drink Soylent. Personal liberty prevails because, in the end, the knock-on effects of removing liberty are a case of the cure being worse than the disease, in most cases.

Automatic enforcement.... That sounds like letting the algorithms put people in jail.

Re: Mercedes-Benz says Level 3 self-driving option ready to roll

#218

Post by crooked-v »

stavros wrote: post #182
doctor_eval wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the parent as meaning to say that because Mercedes will be liable, even 1,000 accidents will be a real problem for them. This is a good thing because it shows that Mercedes expects a very low number of accidents while the system is enabled. Mercedes accepting the risk like this is a massive step forward for these reasons. It sets a precedent that hopefully others will follow. They wouldn't transfer the risk if…

I guess, maybe I misunderstood. I was just surprised to read "it's better to have a ton of deaths, rather than a few deaths we're on the hook for".

On the other hand, if incautiously switching from the former to the latter drives your company bankrupt, the end result doesn't benefit anyone.

Re: Mercedes-Benz says Level 3 self-driving option ready to roll

#219

Post by jfoster »

ghostpepper wrote: post #212
stavros wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess, maybe I misunderstood. I was just surprised to read "it's better to have a ton of deaths, rather than a few deaths we're on the hook for".

From the company's point of view this is correct reasoning. The sooner people realize companies do not have any responsibility to be moral the better

It's actually a human thing. When bad things happen, we strongly prefer that they don't happen as a result of something that we did.

Re: Mercedes-Benz says Level 3 self-driving option ready to roll

#220

Post by dwighttk »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #46
daenz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if 40mph is a magic number that is a good tradeoff between speed and survivability (and injury-related out-of-court settlements)

That threshold is generally considered to be 20mph. Below that speed pedestrian injuries are unlikely to be fatal. It's what urban speed limits are in Sweden, and they average about one pedestrian death a year in the entire country.

not gonna be a lot of pedestrians on the highway, are there?
Post reply on HN