[bhauer]

> "Drivers can activate Mercedes's technology. called Drive Pilot, when certain conditions are met, including in heavy traffic jams, during the daytime, on specific California and Nevada freeways, and when the car is traveling less than 40 mph. Drivers can focus on other activities until the vehicle alerts them to resume control. The technology does not work on roads that haven't been pre-approved by Mercedes, including on freeways in other states."

It's remarkable how often these significant limitations are ignored.

The difference between SAE Level 3 versus Level 2 is liability, not functionality. Conceptually, it would be relatively simple to create a Level 3 system that only worked in parking lots and never drove over 5 MPH. And yes, such a system would be "Level 3," which naively sounds better than "Level 2" because the number is higher.

But you could compare such a system that works only in parking lots against Tesla's Supervised FSD Level 2 system which controls the vehicle at prevailing speeds on all city streets and highways, executes left and right turns, stops at traffic controls, executes U-turns, parks, and everything else. Tesla doesn't want to assume liability yet because they are still iterating fast. The last few builds have been released about two weeks apart.

The functional domain of a Level 2 system can be significantly greater than a Level 3 system. And that is the case when comparing Tesla Supervised FSD versus Mercedes Drivepilot. It remains commendable for Mercedes to take on liability, but we should not kid ourselves. Doing so is a play for cheap media wins and punchy-sounding milestones like what we see in this article. It's not actually moving autonomy forward in any meaningful way when compared alongside Waymo and Tesla FSD. The scope of the Mercedes system is simply too narrow.

[ra7]

> The difference between SAE Level 3 versus Level 2 is liability, not functionality. Conceptually, it would be relatively simple to create a Level 3 system that only worked in parking lots and never drove over 5 MPH. And yes, such a system would be "Level 3," which naively sounds better than "Level 2" because the number is higher.

No one’s going to take liability if their technology is not ready for the conditions they want to work in. And no one’s creating systems that only work in 5 mph parking lots just to claim the L3 title. So comparison to hypothetical systems aren’t useful.

[bhauer]

The limitations of the Mercedes system are only a little higher than the hypothetical parking lot Level 3 system. The point is to emphasize that a narrow Level 3 system is not very interesting compared to a broad Level 2 system. Technical capability > appeasing lawyers.

[ra7]

Technical capability with known operating conditions (that can expand over time) > technical capability with unknown operating conditions.

Only one of them allows you to take liability.

[llamaimperative]

Uhh but a narrow Level 3 system will also in general do broad Level 2. You think these Mercedes can't do adaptive cruise control at 60mph wherever you want to activate it?

I would take a car with reliable, narrow L3 and reliable broad L2 (especially when the L3 is reliable in the most frustrating driving conditions to encounter) over broad pseudo-L3 any day.

Waymos are incredible, but Teslas are a much worse tradeoff than what MB is proposing here in my opinion.

[bhauer]

> Uhh but a narrow Level 3 system will also in general do broad Level 2. You think these Mercedes can't do adaptive cruise control at 60mph wherever you want to activate it?

The Mercedes system will absolutely not follow navigation routes, change lanes, execute right and left turns, execute U-turns, stop at traffic controls, and so on. All of which FSD will do.

A broadly capable Level 2 system that is suitable for 99% of driving scenarios (with supervision) is way more interesting than a tightly constrained Level 3 system that is only suitable for <1% of driving scenarios.

[llamaimperative]

> The difference between SAE Level 3 versus Level 2 is liability, not functionality.

No it's not. The difference is functionality, proof that the vendor believes they've achieved that difference is most clearly communicated via liability.

> The scope of the Mercedes system is simply too narrow

Producing systems that perform reliably under the prescribed conditions is called "good engineering."

[srockets]

> Tesla doesn't want to assume liability yet because they are still iterating fast.

I would guess the reason for not wanting to assume liability is not their update cadence, but the same reason that made Mobileye fire them as a customer.

[Retric]

Level 3 actually lets you take a break while driving. L2 systems don’t and therefore IMO don't provide significant benefits.

More range and more driving conditions just don’t matter here if I can’t read a book on the way to work then it’s not self driving just advanced cruse control.

[srockets]

You can read a book on the way to work. Before going fully remote, I did it every weekday, using a magnificent piece of technology called public transit.

[Retric]

And level 5 beats level 3, however I don’t have any public transport options on the way to work and nobody is selling level 5 self driving cars. Mercedes hasn’t mapped my roads either, but that’s a lower barrier than getting nationwide public transportation setup.

[srockets]

And this is the why I think pouring money on autonomous driving is a net negative for most but a small group of shareholders: a public transit infrastructure is expensive, but the net benefits are immense, and can be had today.

Every dollar spent on private cars reduces that infrastructure, and that's not just my own thinking, but also that of car manufacturers, as evident by their lobbying to derail public transit projects.

[Retric]

It’s different pools of money.

Further I don’t live in a city so my local government has zero interest in public transportation beyond school buses. We just don’t have the density where it makes any sense. When I did live in a city the issue wasn’t drivers it was the inability to scale roads for local demand. Self driving cars don’t change anything about that equation.

[kwhitefoot]

Not really. Mercedes say you have to be able to take over within ten seconds.

[Retric]

10 seconds after a warning which is plenty when your reading. You do need to stay awake, sober, and in the drivers seat but that’s not a big deal.

[flohofwoe]

> against Tesla's Supervised FSD Level 2 system

...those same Mercedes cars that have Level 3 also have a much more "powerful" and flexible Level 2 system built in, but this requires to keep a hand on the wheel and pay attention to the road (mentioned towards the end of this video, at around 6:15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLz95Gw7g8c)