[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.