331–340 of 410 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'This is a tectonic shift in liability. ' Its the only form of liability i consider acceptable - I woupd never use autopilot where I would be to blame if i fail to react in 50 milliseconds once the car fucks up
You are already going to be to blamed if you get in an accident for most hardware failures in a car. Why is this one so different?
I really wish cars removed from residential areas and inner city, basically anywhere people are walking around. It makes self driving much easier and also eliminate the need for parking. You would walk a bit more (like five minutes), to a bus stop and be picked up by a car. Much healthier and probably causes less congestion too. Within city's and residential areas you can have nice bike and walking paths and more roo…
I used to bike or walk to a carpool car quite a few times. But I was driving back home to pick my family and bags.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah and they certainly have a lot of data because of their approach. I just wonder how (or if) they’ll make the shift to level 3 without angering customers. Or, if they’ll choose to stay at level 2 so they can have more features.
Maybe they don't design their roadmap around arbitrary level numbers but instead around marketable features.
While the specs sound very underwhelming at first (geo-fenced on some roads, very low speeds, no bad weather), they seem to be so confident in their system, that they will take responsibility for the car when in autopilot. AFAIK, no other manufacturer does this for their systems (which capabilities they often make rather wild claims about).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big risk that Waymo/Mercedes is taking with this approach is that they do not know what blocking issues they will run into when adding new functionality to these systems. What if driving in rain or snow is incompatible with their architecture and they have to do a major rewrite to expand into that functionality? With the Tesla Approach they already know where the system fails and where the system isn't making any…
"We killed a few people but we got a bitchin' architecture going from the start." You should be a construction site manager in Qatar.
The antivax people agree with that approach. We don't know the long term effects of the vaccine therefore we shouldn't use it.
> I'm currently driving a pretty new Mercedes (company car), and its lane assistant regularly tries to kill me in construction areas because it wants me to follow the regular, currently inactive lane markings.
I've gotten an even newer Mercedes since then (A250e, build finished 2022-03), and it's really impressive.
The lane assistant no longer makes a mess in construction areas.
It has adaptive cruise control, which works REALLY well, and I'd be comfortable relying on that on the highway, for example. It's sometimes breaks when I wouldn't, in dense traffic when I'm approaching an obstruction that I will drive around later.
It has an enhanced lane assistant which does small corrections much earlier than the regular lane assistant, which I found annoying and switched off.
It has sensors to the side and back to be aware of approaching cars when switching lanes.
Long trips have become much more less stressful with that, and I can totally believe that this is on a good way towards level 3 self-driving. (This doesn't include the self-driving package, it's "just" what you get when you pay for the regular security/assistance tech).
This is real progress. Ad video.[1] Still very limited. Won't work at night. Has a LIDAR, but it's in the front grille, which only gives it enough of a view for anti-collision. We should be seeing review videos soon. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ue7ISC3eHQ
That video is completely animated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, this reasoning is flawed. The baseline safety of cars is an absolute shit show. 30,000 people dying every year and trillion dollars of damages and lost productivity. Car A can enable FSD in all cases, be safer in all cases, but still not be a good deal economically for the manufacturer to accept liability. Car B could be making drivers less safe overall by preventing them from enabling FSD in most cases, but at l…
Your comment is predicated on the assumption that FSD (the actual system installed in the car, not a future theoretical perfect system) is safer than the average driver in the situations where Mercedes currently disables it. I'm not sure we have data to support that? We know Tesla's autopilot is safer on average, but most of those miles will have been driven in the situations where Mercedes allows it to be used.
We don't even know this (even if you restrict it to highway miles), since it's not an apples to apples comparison. General safety statistics include old cars with fewer safety features independent of who's driving the car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Our leader of all things FSD is on sabbatical, please bare with us"
Karpathy doesn’t lead FSD.
Whichever way you cut it, that's a pretty significant situation for FSD at this time.
In my eyes, FSD is over, and has been for 2 years. They'll get to Lane Assist ^2 but that's it. None of the pretty youtube videos convince me, and there are just as many which are terrible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'This is a tectonic shift in liability. ' Its the only form of liability i consider acceptable - I woupd never use autopilot where I would be to blame if i fail to react in 50 milliseconds once the car fucks up
You are already going to be to blamed if you get in an accident for most hardware failures in a car. Why is this one so different?
If the car's brakes don't work due to a defect, you are not liable at all.
And if you show reasonable due diligence, that is regular maintenance, the same applies doubly so.
Beyond that, I've seen a lot of accidents, and none of them were the car's fault.
All were literally human error, or external factors. EG, deer leaping on to road, too many frogs on the road, etc