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

401–410 of 778 posts

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#401

Post by taeric »

sokoloff wrote: post #399
TacticalCoder wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would appreciate "automated rumble strips" that warns me gently if I veer out of my lane. The Toyota CH-R my wife had did that. Above 50 km/h / 30mph the steering wheel would gently "shake" if you tried to switch lanes without using your blinker. Several brands/models offer that, sadly sometimes as an extra (FWIW I think it should be illegal to offer that as an extra: it should either come stock or not be offered…

Safety features cost money; it doesn’t bother me for them to be optional, especially since the alternative for novel ones is more likely “not offered” or “everyone is forced to buy them” rather than “given away for no charge”.

Safety features also save money, though? Through the safety. Makes sense that we could mandate they exist.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#403

Post by Justsignedup »

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 would appreciate "automated rumble strips" that warns me gently if I veer out of my lane.

Lane departure warning systems do exactly that. My mazda does this and basically between smart cruise, lane departure warnings, and big old alarms when someone in front of me suddenly hits the break, driving is SO MUCH MENTALLY EASIER. And don't get me started about blindspot alerts and HUDs oh man so amaze.

I still think Level 2 assist is worse than no assist. But level 1 assist is fucking amazing.

I agree about the parking thing. Its such a novelty thing like "hey hey hey bro check it out" and press a button. "ooooh! Aaaaah" meanwhile I can do the same maneuver in say 10 seconds flat since I've been doing it so long. Honestly maybe in 10 years the feature will be so smooth people will question how to even park without it, like rear cameras.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#404

Post by wilg »

Veserv wrote: post #369
wilg wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not necessarily worse, since there is a person driving the car who can prevent the car from behaving badly. What's the safety difference between this and a regular cruise control, which will happily plow you into a wall or car if you don't intervene? And, empirically, there's no evidence that these cars are less safe when driving this way. Tesla claims people driving with FSD enabled have 4x fewer accidents than…

You do not get to assume safety in a safety-critical system, period. The burden of proof lies with the entity trying to release a dangerous product to prove that it is safe, not demand everybody else to prove that it is unsafe. The entire argument that there is no evidence that it is unsafe and thus it is okay is wrong to its very foundation. It is such a bad argument that a licensed engineer would stand a good chanc…

First, thanks for being an asshole. Second, the product has been released, I did not engineer it, and people online are arguing about it. I’m interested in whether the criticism I’m seeing is valid. Is your idea that anyone who claims something is unsafe, for any reason, should be immediately trusted? If not, how do we have such a discussion? How do we weed out poor arguments? I gave a first-principles argument for why the system might be about as safe as a commonly accepted feature, and also mentioned corroborating evidence of it’s safety. You are welcome to disagree with it, but so far, like most people, you’ve just come in hotheaded and not provided any substantive argument.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#405

Post by enragedcacti »

fallingknife wrote: post #196
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…

Changing who holds liability does not make the system more or less capable. Think about it. Was Mercedes system any less capable the day before they declared it L3 than the day before? Clearly not. It was the same system. If you want to convince me that their system is way more capable than Tesla, you would have to show me evidence that Tesla FSD fails in the same limited environment as Mercedes is certified L3 in, a…

The system was of course the same, but we as the public have new information about Mercedes' level of confidence and are updating our views.

If a magician bets you $1,000,000 that the card he is holding is the one you chose, are you not going to change your position on how likely it is that he's right?

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#406

Post by tapoxi »

dontlaugh wrote: post #384
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 want cheap trains everywhere.

I mean that's a bus or Bus Rapid Transit, because a train requires dedicated infrastructure and is a fixed route. A bus can route around problems where a train cannot.

In Boston they're trying to connect North Station and South Station, a distance of about 5 miles. The cost is at least $10 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North%E2%80%93South_Rail_Link

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#407

Post by belter »

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.

Because even if they did, would still be worst than many others.

"Ford’s BlueCruise Ousts GM’s Super Cruise as CR’s Top-Rated Active Driving Assistance System - Tesla Autopilot falls to midpack as other high-tech systems improve" (Jan 2023) - https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-safety/active-drivi...

"...Of the 12 ADA systems we just finished testing, Ford BlueCruise came out on top, followed by Cadillac Super Cruise and Mercedes-Benz Driver Assistance. Tesla, once an innovator in ADA with its Autopilot system, fell from its second-place showing in 2020 to seventh this time around—about the middle of the pack. That’s because Tesla hasn’t changed Autopilot’s basic functionality much since it first came out, instead just adding more features to it, says Fisher...

...“After all this time, Autopilot still doesn’t allow collaborative steering and doesn’t have an effective driver monitoring system. While other automakers have evolved their ACC and LCA systems, Tesla has simply fallen behind.”..."

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#408

Post by nearbuy »

worik wrote: post #371
nearbuy wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 - unl…

- It's not clear why you no longer care that a technology is killing a lot of people if there's a human in the loop that you can blame. If a driver runs over your sister/son/friend, does it matter if you can blame someone?

- About 43,000 American motorists died in 2021. If we have a way to prevent many of their deaths with software, would you not want to unless you could prevent every death?

- Why is a software tool failure different from any other tool failure? Brakes can fail, wheels can fall off) (happened to me once), etc. Listeria in produce is a failure in the production chain. Showers can be made safer. You use your car/shower/spinach and some day, for reasons entirely beyond your control, it might kill you.

- Why isn't the driver to blame in a Tesla? They're supposed to be watching and responsible.

- There's no clear distinction between what's a software failure and what isn't. Collisions have multiple contributing factors. Perfect software will still have collisions. The numbers reported aren't just collisions where the Tesla was at fault. One person was killed by a self-driving vehicle when a person jumped a concrete barrier and ran across the highway at night. The human driver couldn't react in time, and the software didn't see them. Is that a software failure? At what point do we accept that a collision is no longer the car's fault?

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#409

Post by AussieWog93 »

comte7092 wrote: post #402
xyzzyz wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t have them both “cheap” and “everywhere”.

Why not?

You don't get the economies of scale needed to justify high-quality, regular rail service along the more quiet routes.

Look at China's high speed rail network. Only a small minority of routes manage to break even, and the rest of them are a huge financial burden that the CCP just accepts because achieving a huge engineering feat creates a sense of national pride.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#410

Post by weakfish »

generalizations wrote: post #376
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?

LM = language model

I fail to see how that is relevant to computer vision

Post reply on HN