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

Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 778 posts

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#81

Post by justapassenger »

elif wrote: post #70
justapassenger wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, let’s focus on the technical aspects. Tesla has no safety life cycle process and as a result FSD is inherently unsafe, from the engineering point of view. You can try to hand wave over that, but if you are an engineer working on the safety critical systems (it’s an actual engineering field), that’s all you need to know about FSD.

How will you discretely identify every problem to be solved in the domain of live real drivers in real world conditions? Applying a model of an industrial plant where machines interface with machines, and occasionally humans in prescribed and orderly functions, will not get you any closer to safety. What will get you closer to safety is insanely large corpus of real world data being trained on in a continuous feedbac…

Ask Boeing how ignoring it works out.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#82

Post by zaroth »

belter wrote: post #75
gzer0 wrote: post #43

Friendly reminder that this system is HEAVILY limited, with the following restrictions: - Must be under 40 mph - Only during the daylight and only on certain highways - CANNOT be operated on city/country streets - CANNOT be operated in construction zones - CANNOT be during heavy rain or fog or flood roads And for comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjZSZTKYEU4 Tesla FSD navigating the complex city streets of…

Took me less than a few minutes, to find in the same channel, FSD failing and the human having to intervene. Here it is at the proper time and for a video uploaded 10 hours ago... - https://youtu.be/KG4yABOlNjk?t=995 And even worst failures...looking at all these I simply do not believe the videos posted are not edited or a selection of a success out of many failed ones. https://youtu.be/KG4yABOlNjk?t=1252 https://yo…

This is a great example! I hope people will take the time to click and watch it drive.

I think it’s a tough call in this case. The Tesla is trying not to block an intersection where a light is green but there’s no room to clear the intersection on the other side due to traffic ahead. In fact an oncoming car is able to turn left in front of the Tesla because it waited.

Probably the law is that you should NOT enter the intersection in such a state, but the human nature would be to make a more nuanced judgement of “how bad would it be” to continue thru and possibly get stuck sticking out into the intersection for a bit until traffic moves again.

I would think - how long might I be stuck? Would it actual impede other traffic? Also factors like, am I’m late for work? Am I frustrated because traffic has been horrible or am I enjoying a Sunday drive?

Ego (Tesla’s name for the driving software) doesn’t get impatient. It can maximally obey all traffic regulations at all times if they code it to do so, even if human drivers behind might be laying on the horn.

This little clip really shows how much nuance is involved in designing these systems, and how doing the technically right thing can either be wrong or at least ambiguously right.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#83

Post by zaroth »

simion314 wrote: post #72
gzer0 wrote: post #43

Friendly reminder that this system is HEAVILY limited, with the following restrictions: - Must be under 40 mph - Only during the daylight and only on certain highways - CANNOT be operated on city/country streets - CANNOT be operated in construction zones - CANNOT be during heavy rain or fog or flood roads And for comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjZSZTKYEU4 Tesla FSD navigating the complex city streets of…

Would you bet your life on a Tesla Twitter promise? They are not even betting one cent on their car safety.

> They are not even betting one cent in their car safety.

Do you mean strictly in the sense of accepting liability for crashes while AutoPilot is engaged?

Because Tesla makes safety a primary selling point of their vehicles. Objectively Tesla invests hugely in the safety of their vehicles, and scores the absolute highest marks for safety in many government tests.

Tesla makes an L2 system where the driver must remain engaged. And part of their FSD system includes the most sophisticated driver gaze and attention tracking system on the market. This has made their FSD system on predominantly non-highway roads safer than the average human driver without FSD.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#84

Post by zaroth »

justapassenger wrote: post #80
zaroth wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s bizarre and absurd to claim a system that’s driven billions of miles “doesn’t work”. I really like how Simondotau put it. These are wildly different systems. Benchmarks can always be rigged and I see this move by Mercedes no differently. Having failed to compete with Tesla on actual self driving technology, they concocted a minimally useful system that could check a box in their marketing material. Mercedes, her…

Because it’s very very simple. One system is self driving and other isn’t, no matter how you try to spin it.

One is a universal L2 autonomous driving system and one highly limited L3 autonomous driving system. They are both considered forms of autonomous driving.

[1] - https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-level...

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#85

Post by dmbche »

zaroth wrote: post #65
dmbche wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all enforced by the government, it's not a limitation of the system. They might be comfortable with liability for more than this but are not allowed to by regulators - which is wise

It literally is a “limitation of the system”.

The implied system is Benz's autodriving. You seem to refer to "society" as a system. Clever, but not really fruitful.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#86

Post by sidibe »

belter wrote: post #8
oblio wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main thing is that Mercedes Benz will take liability for anything that goes wrong. But the system as a whole is far less capable than Tesla FSD. "It's less capable except for the minor fact that if we > someone, it's >". You know, that minor factor called "life or death". > ... only when driving under 40 mph on highways. So it is pretty useless. If Waymo/Tesla/whatever would do this, they'd be the darlings of t…

Also known as "draw the rest of the owl"

At least they started with an owl shape. Tesla is starting with a square before "draw the rest of the owl"

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#87

Post by sidibe »

oblio wrote: post #4
porphyra wrote: post #3

... only when driving under 40 mph on highways. So it is pretty useless. The main thing is that Mercedes Benz will take liability for anything that goes wrong. But the system as a whole is far less capable than Tesla FSD.

> The main thing is that Mercedes Benz will take liability for anything that goes wrong. But the system as a whole is far less capable than Tesla FSD. "It's less capable except for the minor fact that if we > someone, it's >". You know, that minor factor called "life or death". > ... only when driving under 40 mph on highways. So it is pretty useless. If Waymo/Tesla/whatever would do this, they'd be the darlings of t…

> If Waymo/Tesla/whatever would do this, they'd be the darlings of the internet.

How exactly do you think Waymo works that they wouldn't take responsibility?

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#88

Post by belter »

zaroth wrote: post #82
belter wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Took me less than a few minutes, to find in the same channel, FSD failing and the human having to intervene. Here it is at the proper time and for a video uploaded 10 hours ago... - https://youtu.be/KG4yABOlNjk?t=995 And even worst failures...looking at all these I simply do not believe the videos posted are not edited or a selection of a success out of many failed ones. https://youtu.be/KG4yABOlNjk?t=1252 https://yo…

This is a great example! I hope people will take the time to click and watch it drive. I think it’s a tough call in this case. The Tesla is trying not to block an intersection where a light is green but there’s no room to clear the intersection on the other side due to traffic ahead. In fact an oncoming car is able to turn left in front of the Tesla because it waited. Probably the law is that you should NOT enter the…

That is not the failure. The failure is that would not move anymore and the driver had to intervene and accelerate.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#89

Post by zaroth »

ethanbond wrote: post #74
zaroth wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement makes no logical sense. Their systems are “capable of” what they can be used to achieve in actual operation. It’s not like it’s this massively sophisticated system for FSD with most of the code commented out. These are purpose-built and heavily tested to a specification - that’s how engineering works. The Mercedes system specification is extremely limited in practice, but gives them the marketing win o…

Systems that are required to have ~100% performance within an operational design domain generally have more than 0% performance beyond that domain. For example, Tesla FSD seems like a pretty good highway cruise control, but it can be dangerously deployed in city driving too. Of course this is a little difficult to argue about since AFAIK Tesla has never defined its ODD and their lead autopilot software guy said in hi…

I maintain that the Mercedes system is “capable of” what it can functionally be deployed to achieve by a user. That’s what “capable of” means. If Mercedes wants to try its hand at a universal L2 system, I wish them the best. This system is in truth not capable of L2 or L3 autonomous driving under almost all typical driving conditions. There is a small geofenced and speed constrained window under which the car will lane-keep and TACC without requiring hands-on-wheel. To me, that’s what we call a “gimmick”.

An autonomous system which cannot even change lanes should not - in my opinion - be classified as L3 Autonomy. Not only is it a gimmick, it’s basically a loophole in the spec.

As an aside, since you mentioned it, I think that describing FSD as “pretty good highway cruise control” is gaslighting.

Describing FSD as dangerously deployed in city driving is merely misinformed. In fact FSD (including the human driver and FSD’s comprehensive attention tracking and alerting) is safer than the average driver in city driving.

https://www.tesla.com/impact

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#90

Post by justapassenger »

zaroth wrote: post #84
justapassenger wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it’s very very simple. One system is self driving and other isn’t, no matter how you try to spin it.

One is a universal L2 autonomous driving system and one highly limited L3 autonomous driving system. They are both considered forms of autonomous driving. [1] - https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-level...

One legally drives the car for you. Other doesn’t.
Post reply on HN