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

91–100 of 778 posts

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#91

Post by dbcurtis »

belter wrote: post #10
dbcurtis wrote: post #9

L3 is profoundly unwise. L3 can disengage at any moment. The attention required of the human in order to drive safely exceeds that required in L2, and is much more difficult to maintain.

It will give a 10 second warning - https://youtu.be/1gjweWq8qAc

I have verrrry limited connectivity RN so can’t watch video. If they really do give 10 seconds, then does the system remain engaged for the “dog/kid darting out between parked cars” scenario? And engage a collision avoidance trajectory planner? 10 seconds is an eternity, even in 35 mph zones. (60 kph)

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#92

Post by justapassenger »

zaroth wrote: post #83
simion314 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> And part of their FSD system includes the most sophisticated driver gaze and attention tracking system on the market.

That’s a just blunt lie. Their driver monitoring system is very deficient. They lack, for example, industry standard of infrared camera that allows you to see through the sunglasses.

And all older Model S/X, that have FSD, lack any camera at all.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#93

Post by dbcurtis »

Gasp0de wrote: post #17
dbcurtis wrote: post #9

L3 is profoundly unwise. L3 can disengage at any moment. The attention required of the human in order to drive safely exceeds that required in L2, and is much more difficult to maintain.

How is that different from L2? SAE Levels 0-2 demand constant supervision and the ability to take over at any moment. Level 3 is actually better, as it only requires you to be able to take over after a short (e.g. 10 second) notice. Levels 4 and 5 do not require the driver to be able to take over (e.g. drunk, sleeping, no license). https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update

How short is short? How fast is your OODA loop? L3 plays into known human factor weaknesses.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#94

Post by justapassenger »

Vespasian wrote: post #47
ajross wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also worth pointing out that this is an extremely limited system: > On suitable freeway sections and where there is high traffic density, DRIVE PILOT can offer to take over the dynamic driving task, up to speeds of 40 mph. Basically, this will follow the car in front of you in slow freeway traffic. It won't navigate, it won't even change lanes. It won't work (and it's not clear to me how it disengages) when traf…

You forgot the best "feature": It allows you to take your hands off the wheel and your eyes off the road. This is significant as it means MB takes on liability and will give you sufficient time (i think 10s in the European version) to take over. In the world of corporate liability this is huge even if it isn't a technical achievement by itself.

Only people who don’t understand problem domain think it’s not a technical achievement.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#95

Post by zaroth »

justapassenger wrote: post #92
zaroth wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> And part of their FSD system includes the most sophisticated driver gaze and attention tracking system on the market. That’s a just blunt lie. Their driver monitoring system is very deficient. They lack, for example, industry standard of infrared camera that allows you to see through the sunglasses. And all older Model S/X, that have FSD, lack any camera at all.

You’re right, their older cars don’t have their most advanced system. When I said “on the market” I mean the cars they are selling now, not historically.

I’ve found the system extremely adept at gaze tracking and alerting. The cabin camera is infrared in their latest models (at least for the last 2 years).

Please don’t call me a liar. I am happy to be called wrong and corrected.

I should have said “one of the most advanced” because this is in truth a subjective measure and I don’t think agencies like NHTSA rank and qualify attention tracking?

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#96

Post by zaroth »

belter wrote: post #88
zaroth wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At 16:55 thru 17:15? Where he manually accelerates the car and blocks the intersection?

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#97

Post by zaroth »

justapassenger wrote: post #90
zaroth wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually they are both legally autonomously driving according to SAE. You should read up on it!

“SAE International is the world’s leading authority in mobility standards development.” Forgive me if I’ll take their internationally recognized standards over your characterization.

Certainly only one of the systems accepts liability for accidents while it’s enabled, but liability for accidents is just one component of autonomous driving, and not the most important one.

The most important one is clearly the percentage availability of the system across varying roads and conditions.

An L3 or L4 system that is geofenced to work on a few miles of select private roads might be a “world first” while simultaneously being of little practical value.

In essence, a pissing contest or vanity metric.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#98

Post by oblio »

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"

Mercedes has drawn a lot more of the owl than anyone else. Accepting liability is huge.

It's putting their money where their mouth is.

Musk is putting his mouth on a lot of things, I guess that makes him a baby?

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#99

Post by zaroth »

dmbche wrote: post #85
zaroth wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wasn’t trying to be cheeky. I must have misunderstood your comment?

As I understand it the L3 system is limited to limited access highway roads, < 40mph, and no lane changes. Those are its limitations, and I believe they are self-imposed by Mercedes, not any US regulations.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#100

Post by belter »

zaroth wrote: post #96
belter wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

At 16:55 thru 17:15? Where he manually accelerates the car and blocks the intersection?

https://youtu.be/KG4yABOlNjk?t=999

16:40 to 17:12

Post reply on HN