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

371–380 of 778 posts

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#371

Post by worik »

nearbuy wrote: post #364
worik wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without any comparison to humans those numbers are completely meaningless I disagree. What I want to know, is is it safe? Not is it safer than the average human driver, but is it safe in an absolute sense. When a human driver crashes we can almost always pin the cause down to human error. Errors caused by some human failing, being less than they could be. The promise of machines is that they are consistent. They ar…

1. It's the adaptive cruise control, not the FSD. 2. What would a good absolute number for that period be? Our threshold can't be zero or we'd have to give up every technology from showers/baths (~60x more deadly) to fresh produce (E. coli, salmonella, listeria).

> 2. What would a good absolute number for that period be? Our threshold can't be zero or we'd have to give up every technology from showers/baths (~60x more deadly) to fresh produce (E. coli, salmonella, listeria).

Zero accidents caused by the failure of the software. (Clearly a good system may have some obscure bug that makes it fail - but failure of a self driving system should cause uproar and consternation - unlike the reaction of Tesla to the deaths caused by their systems, it seems)

If I slip over in the shower it is not because the shower head went rouge and strangled me. If a shower was designed that in the period of one year strangled eleven people (a fair comparison to Tesla's record) imagine that?

Point being your comparisons (food poisoning or household mishaps) are not relevant

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#372

Post by roenxi »

BoorishBears wrote: post #304
oxfordmale wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mercedes accepts legal liability for collisions if the system is used under these stringent conditions. Tesla doesn't do this. It also doesn't mean it doesn't have the technical capability to drive through the streets of LA for 60 minutes. https://www.thatcham.org/mercedes-to-accept-liability-for-ac...

Working in the AV space, it's really frustrating how confidently people who have no idea about what's hard and what isn't go off about Tesla right now. Mercedes has soundly beaten the last decade of Tesla efforts by reaching L3. I've personally watched FSD go off the rails and into a crash situation within 60 seconds of being turned on three times this month (I have a friend who loves to try it in San Francisco) Had…

Working in the space appears to be misleading you. It is quite obvious that Teslas can already drive themselves - the thread ancestor literally linked a video.

Your comment has complaints about an academic engineering definition/legal standard that, realistically, is probably going to be paid for in lives by delaying the roll-out and development of self driving vehicles. We know from the march of AI in other fields that the potential for cars to drive to superhuman safety standards is just on the cusp of technologically achievable and will likely be achieved with some sort of evolutionary approach of trying a bunch of things and seeing what works.

This is exactly the wrong time to be making automakers liable for experimenting. If anything, we should be lowering the standards automakers are held to to push through the last technical barriers and break into the oasis where less people kill themselves on the road. I've already lost too many tired friends to car accidents; we should be sparing no effort to get humans away from the driver's wheel. In a fair world, people advocating raising standards should be held liable for the lives they are throwing away on net.

Nobody is being forced to drive a car with autopilot if they aren't comfortable. The risks are obvious and understood. Personal liability is fine.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#373

Post by fortran77 »

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…

I own a Tesla with the FSD Beta. (Model S Plaid). I don't know why you seem so bitter about Mercedes product. I'm excited about it! The Tesla FSD really isn't useful, except as an enhanced cruise control.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#374

Post by henrikschroder »

meghan_rain wrote: post #339
natch wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time you disengage it invites you to leave immediate voice feedback as to why, and presumably they are using all this feedback in conjunction with camera and data feeds from cars that are opted in (which includes all FSD beta cars I believe). So, they are getting what they need to make it better.

> Every time you disengage it invites you to leave immediate voice feedback as to why lmao do people do this for free?

Worse, they actually think it matters and that Tesla looks at the reports or uses them for anything.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#375

Post by fastball »

belter wrote: post #264
kbos87 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m left wondering what this comment proves? The four situations you posted were the most minor of minor annoyances when the car was being too cautious , and you’ve decided they must be cherry picked without any evidence given.

It's shows the system does not have a semantic understanding of what is happening. That is why he stops so far away from the gate, it does not know it is a gate. This is another one, definitely one of my favorite examples ( at correct time) - https://youtu.be/2u6AgLuwVqI?t=86

But the Mercedes system has a semantic idea of what is happening?

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#376

Post by generalizations »

worik wrote: post #367

What do we want from self driving cars? Naturally I wand a car I can summon from the pub that will drive me the 20km, over country roads, to my house while I mix cocktails or have a nap. That may never happen, current technology does not seem up to it. Then what? Modern cruise control, that keeps my car a constant distance form the car in front (unless it roars off at a speed higher that what I am comfortable with) i…

I can easily imagine that multimodal GPT-style LMs running in real-time could do all the common sense thinking that seems to be lacking in modern self driving. That future could be just a 100x optimization away.

Edit: multimodal. Does no one remember the vision + language version of GPT4 that microsoft demoed?

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#377

Post by kccqzy »

worik wrote: post #367

What do we want from self driving cars? Naturally I wand a car I can summon from the pub that will drive me the 20km, over country roads, to my house while I mix cocktails or have a nap. That may never happen, current technology does not seem up to it. Then what? Modern cruise control, that keeps my car a constant distance form the car in front (unless it roars off at a speed higher that what I am comfortable with) i…

You want Waymo then.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#378

Post by [deleted] »

adsfgiodsnrio wrote: post #164
wilg wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure exactly your point. The Tesla does sometimes require intervention, that's why it's Level 2. But it's still attempting to drive in significantly more complicated situations than this Drive Pilot thing. Does Drive Pilot stop at stoplights or make turns? I don't think so. Regarding deceptive editing, plenty of people post their Teslas doing squirrely things and them intervening. So it's not like a secret th…

We know Tesla cannot match Mercedes. We don't know whether or not Mercedes can match Tesla. Mercedes isn't reckless enough to let untrained fanboys play with defective software in two-ton vehicles on public roads.

[deleted]

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#379

Post by fastball »

pell wrote: post #321
readams wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autopilot is just fancy cruise control. How many crashes have there been with cruise control turned on? It's just a completely meaningless thing to even look at. How many crashes would there have been during those miles without autopilot?

Tesla doesn’t sell Autopilot as cruise control though.

Yes they do? Autopilot is standard in all Teslas, which is different from the Tesla FSD (Beta) that Mercedes is being compared to here.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#380

Post by threeseed »

andrewchambers wrote: post #366
threeseed wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with Tesla is the lack of LiDAR not training data. You need to be able to accurately do bounding box detection in order to determine whether that billboard of a person is real or not or if that dog with a hat should be avoided. Research has conclusively shown that vision only systems simply can't match LiDAR for this task.

Don't humans drive with vision only?

We have the world's most advanced supercomputer behind them.

And we also can move our eyes around in three dimensions to infer depth.

Post reply on HN