[phs318u]

I'm not familiar with the facts of the matter but if it is indeed the case that Mercedes is indemnifying drivers for accidents caused by FSD, then that's far more than marketing, and your comment (without presenting any facts to the contrary) is unwarranted.

[Auracle]

The bigger difference is that Mercedes’ system only works on highways, under 40 mph, and you need a car in front of you that it essentially follows.

It’s for traffic jams, and only usable in them. There’s not a big legal liability when the biggest risk is probably a fender bender.

[gonzobonzo]

> The bigger difference is that Mercedes’ system only works on highways, under 40 mph, and you need a car in front of you that it essentially follows.

And geofenced to specific highways, only during the day and during good weather.

It's still cool (to me at least). But it's bizarre seeing people dismiss FSD as being the same as adaptive cruise control while touting Mercede's Drive Pilot. Drive Pilot is a lot closer to adaptive cruise control than FSD.

It's unfortunate that there's so much misinformation that gets thrown around whenever this topic comes up.

[acdha]

People are interested because Drive Pilot is L3 while FSD is L2. People are naturally more interested in the more advanced systems, but that would include FSD if Tesla can improve it to perform closer to the way it’s been marketed. Exaggerating the capabilities for over a decade juiced their share price but it also gave them a reputation for failing to deliver which is going to need hard data to shake: putting their money on the line would be one way to do that.