261–270 of 283 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not safe to nap, but you can do the rest of that. They're promising 10 seconds of warning when the car wants you to take over.
I wonder how much of those 10 seconds would the car spend trying to notify the driver. "Warning, take the wheel! Death imminent" takes a good 6 seconds to say :P
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Tesla's sky-high P/E was predicated on software supremacy. I was informed self-driving robotaxis would be a multi-billion dollar industry that Tesla and Uber would dominate, destroying legacy automakers in the process. This was back when Uber had a self-driving program, it's been downhill since. TO answer your question more concretely: I'd say since 8-10 years ago.
I mean, maybe? But, like, that's after they were making EVs. The roadster was announced in 2006, and started production in 2008 - 15 years ago. They went from making EVs, which are cars with some software inherently in them, to making different cars with even more software in them. They're a car company first, who have been increasing the amount of software they've written to put in their cars . The comment I was rep…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The nudge when leaving a lane is annoying and something I turn off. Going near / over the lane lines happens inadvertently from time to time while driving and the nudge often catches me by surprise. I worry it might cause me to instinctively pull the wheel back too hard by mistake causing an accident.
Going over lane lines does not happen inadvertently with any frequency to most people who are paying attention. If this is happening often enough and you're zoned out enough that this is something that might cause you to over-correct I question if you ought to be driving at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going over lane lines does not happen inadvertently with any frequency to most people who are paying attention. If this is happening often enough and you're zoned out enough that this is something that might cause you to over-correct I question if you ought to be driving at all.
This depends a lot on the country and the infrastructure.
This is a gimmick. Mercedes is claiming liability for the car because the feature only works in extremely limited set of circumstances (traffic jam, cruising at less than 39 mi/hr). Tesla's Autopilot has long been able to do this in this domain, and it does it well; they just don't claim liability yet because $reasons (I'm sure they're gearing up for it with Tesla Insurance). As we see in the announcement, Drive Pilo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a lot of people here are very pessimistic ("this won't work/it's not viable/it's fake/etc"), and whenever there's actual progress that contradicts their previous predictions, they try to save face, move goal posts, etc because obviously they couldn't have misjudged the technology. To be fair I don't think this particular "L3" is groundbreaking but what I said still applies.
You have to be, working in self-driving I know for a fact a lot of "shortcuts" were used in a lot of places. For example, using LiDAR data, map data, overfitting on a short section of road to make it seem the solution is universal when it's just "hardwired". I wouldn't necessarily call it fake, but it was unsustainable and sometimes oversold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can't handle mode switching in this manner. If you are responsible for two tons of metal flying down the road at 70 mph you need to be fully engaged in that task. We can handle being passengers and we can handle being drivers but we can't switch in a split second. So my contention is that level-X where X is less than "I can fall asleep in the back seat" is a deadly valley between unassisted driving and passive pas…
> If you are responsible for two tons of metal flying down the road at 70 mph That's the thing - you're not. Once engaged, Mercedes takes liability, so you're no longer responsible.
I didn't say you were legally responsible. You are morally responsible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even your Level 5 domain is dubious as I've written before. Jim would drive in a blizzard, some Level 5 car refuses to drive in a blizzard. Is the car faulty by this definition or is Jim a lunatic ? I think it's probably Jim. I think Level 4 is clearer because it's closer to public transit. Somebody else (the machine) is driving, so if I'm day dreaming, or indeed asleep, nothing bad happens. I can listen to tunes, ha…
>Jim would drive in a blizzard, some Level 5 car refuses to drive in a blizzard. Is the car faulty by this definition or is Jim a lunatic ? What if staying where he is poses a greater risk to Jim than driving on the road? Why should the car decide for Jim what an acceptable level of risk is, when Jim (presumably) has more information to make that decision?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Jim would drive in a blizzard, some Level 5 car refuses to drive in a blizzard. Is the car faulty by this definition or is Jim a lunatic ? What if staying where he is poses a greater risk to Jim than driving on the road? Why should the car decide for Jim what an acceptable level of risk is, when Jim (presumably) has more information to make that decision?
I'm sure you could make the same argument for why the elevator should work even in a fire. But, you might have noticed if you live or work in a tall building, it explicitly doesn't work in a fire. We decided as a society you don't get to make that choice - because it's very rare this is actually a good idea but people would do it anyway.
1. The elevator does not belong to you. The building manager setting whatever policies on its usage that they want does not violate your right to use your property however you like. For it to be analogous, during a blizzard the road would have to refuse to let your car onto it.
2. While you use the elevator, no one else (such as fire crews) can use it. You driving your car does not prevent anyone else from doing the same.
3. In a fire, there are alternative routes of escape other than the elevator. I suppose the same is not true in a skyscraper. Do elevators shut down in those too? If you're several kilometers from, say, a hospital, you may not have any reasonable alternatives to driving to the hospital in inclement weather.
I wouldn't think that the idea that hardware should obey its operator would need to be defended in HN of all places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.