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

Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

insideevs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 283 posts

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#41

Post by sveme »

judge2020 wrote: post #34
brigade wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big difference between needing to keep attention on the road because the car is liable to hit parked cars obstructing the travel lane, and merely having to be ready to start paying attention when the operational design domain of a L3 system is no longer met. Like for this Drive Pilot, when traffic speeds up to 40 MPH.

The only thing is whether or not Mercedes will take liability for their system if it causes an incident while operating within their defined driving limitation (eg. 35mph). If they still say "it's up to you", it's tough to trust it enough to read a book or watch a movie.

In Germany, they take the liability. Probably the same in the US.

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#42

Post by metaphor »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #24
kortilla wrote: post #3

> According to the SAE levels of driving automation, a Level 3-capable vehicle can take over certain driving tasks, but a driver is still required to be present and ready to take control of the car at all times when prompted to intervene. The first part of the article mentions the driver being able to take a meeting or watch a movie. That’s complete horseshit if they need to be ready to take control of the car at all…

The article is correct. The SAE explains this in more detail and makes the distinction between being constantly ready to immediately take over and being asked to resume driving. https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update

Is this supposed distinction actually meaningful? I don't know...color me unconvinced.

When I interpret "being constantly ready to immediately take over" language, it's unambiguous that I need to maintain full situational awareness as if I were driving the vehicle.

Physically and mentally transitioning from partial to full situational awareness obviously takes some time, and yet from the graphic in the SAE link, the chart remains entirely ambiguous about the permitted time between "when the feature requests" and when "you must drive".

Furthermore, a quick review of SAE J3016 Rev 2021-04 reflects equally ambiguous language in § 5.4 NOTE 4 (my emphasis):

> NOTE 4: In the event of a DDT performance-relevant system failure in a Level 3 ADS, or in the event that the ADS exits its ODD, the ADS will issue a request to intervene within sufficient time for the fallback-ready user (whether in-vehicle or remote) to respond appropriately.

I'm curious what the normative minimum of "sufficient time" will be in practice.

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#43

Post by TylerE »

metaphor wrote: post #42
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is correct. The SAE explains this in more detail and makes the distinction between being constantly ready to immediately take over and being asked to resume driving. https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update

Is this supposed distinction actually meaningful? I don't know...color me unconvinced. When I interpret "being constantly ready to immediately take over" language, it's unambiguous that I need to maintain full situational awareness as if I were driving the vehicle. Physically and mentally transitioning from partial to full situational awareness obviously takes some time, and yet from the graphic in the SAE link, the…

There’s a big difference between “constantly vigilant” and “you can chill out and watch YouTube, and just, like, don’t be drunk or super stoned

The way I’m reading the SAE, it’s closer to the second. Like, it’s actual real self driving, but might need the user to take back control with a modicum of warning if it sees, say, a construction zone ahead or if it detects too much standing water on the road.

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#44

Post by TekMol »

eddsh1994 wrote: post #28

Why's everyone being so negative? This is cool!

For some reason, a large part of HN users seem to hate every fundamentally new technology. It seems the majority here thinks the next 20 years will be like the last 20 years, with only minor, gradial improvements. And every idea of a bigger shift is a scam.

I have yet to see a good explanation of this.

Maybe this is the case on every forum, simply because that is the prevailing attitude among people in general? During the evolution of mankind, fundamental shifts have probably not happened during a lifetime. So maybe our brains are wired to fight the idea of fundamental change as nonsense or betrayal?

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#46

Post by nullish_signal »

bfeynman wrote: post #25
nullish_signal wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monkeys typing with Neuralink also seemed like a Cut and Dry demonstration of the potential usefulness of the device. I'm baffled as to how you can say "fyi it's fundamentally broken" without giving more detail.

physiologically, the devices have a limited lifespan due to fact that the tissue will start scarring over and render the electrodes worthless, it's an invasive procedure that can only be done once or twice. Neuronal actions are chemical interactions, not digital computer signals as well. I agree the work they've done is kind of exciting, but they didn't solve one of the crucial issues that's been blocking the field a…

Thank you for explaining yourself.

Searching 'neuralink "scar"' ('' removed) got me information about the ethical issues of Neuralink@UC Davis, and a 2020 article about potential polymers to use in the wires.

I will continue to wait and see how the tech develops - I certainly was never planning on being one of the first early adopters anyways, but I still see a lot of potential for Paraplegics, and then obviously Consumer usage eventually.

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#47

Post by bobthepanda »

glitchc wrote: post #20
jmole wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying a major car company is buying a whole heap of liabilities and depreciating assets. The major value drivers (contributors to market cap) are brand, patent portfolio, and future revenues from existing capex. Tesla doesn't want to support the supply chain of new and used parts for a legacy car company, they can barely keep up with their own (and they only make 4 models!).

Well, you know, you also get an established luxury brand, a cadre of brand-loyal customers, a significant increase in the manufacturing base and tons of proprietary tech. Are you telling me Mr. Musk would have bothered to create his own brand if he had enough capital to buy an existing brand to start with? The latter is a much safer strategy in bringing a car to market. He took big risks creating his own brand becaus…

you inherit all the politics that comes with an existing company as well.

owners and CEOs are powerful but not infallible; Carlos Ghosn got thrown in jail when he got too big for his britches as CEO of Nissan (in Japan Inc.'s view, at least).

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#48

Post by sgjohnson »

TekMol wrote: post #44
eddsh1994 wrote: post #28

Why's everyone being so negative? This is cool!

For some reason, a large part of HN users seem to hate every fundamentally new technology. It seems the majority here thinks the next 20 years will be like the last 20 years, with only minor, gradial improvements. And every idea of a bigger shift is a scam. I have yet to see a good explanation of this. Maybe this is the case on every forum, simply because that is the prevailing attitude among people in general? Durin…

> For some reason, a large part of HN users seem to hate every fundamentally new technology.

Hate and healthy skepticism are two completely different things.

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#49

Post by TekMol »

sgjohnson wrote: post #48
TekMol wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some reason, a large part of HN users seem to hate every fundamentally new technology. It seems the majority here thinks the next 20 years will be like the last 20 years, with only minor, gradial improvements. And every idea of a bigger shift is a scam. I have yet to see a good explanation of this. Maybe this is the case on every forum, simply because that is the prevailing attitude among people in general? Durin…

> For some reason, a large part of HN users seem to hate every fundamentally new technology. Hate and healthy skepticism are two completely different things.

When I came here 10 minutes ago, this was the top comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34335123

Calling the article "complete horseshit". That sounds hateful to me.

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#50

Post by ultrarunner »

glitchc wrote: post #20
jmole wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying a major car company is buying a whole heap of liabilities and depreciating assets. The major value drivers (contributors to market cap) are brand, patent portfolio, and future revenues from existing capex. Tesla doesn't want to support the supply chain of new and used parts for a legacy car company, they can barely keep up with their own (and they only make 4 models!).

Well, you know, you also get an established luxury brand, a cadre of brand-loyal customers, a significant increase in the manufacturing base and tons of proprietary tech. Are you telling me Mr. Musk would have bothered to create his own brand if he had enough capital to buy an existing brand to start with? The latter is a much safer strategy in bringing a car to market. He took big risks creating his own brand becaus…

Well, technically Musk bought an ownership stake in Tesla
Post reply on HN