The small car is seemingly an endangered species. Crossover SUVs dominate much of the world, and even once beloved small car nameplates have become chunky crossovers. It’s a big deal when an automaker comes out with a tiny car concept, and small car fans have something to cheer about. The Mazda Vision X-Compact looks fantastic on the outside (see also: the Vision X Coupe), and on the inside, this new concept car recognizes that enthusiasts don’t like screens – but replaces them with something even worse. More on that in a bit.
Mazda revealed its Vision X-Compact at the Japan Mobility Show yesterday, and car enthusiasts have understandably fallen deeply in love. At only 12.5 feet long, this cutie is only a tad larger than a Japanese Kei car and over a foot shorter than a Mazda 3. Back in the day, as in the 2010s, we used to call these “city cars,” and America used to have such awesome examples as the Honda Fit, the Ford Fiesta, and the Mazda 2. In fact, this concept car is five inches shorter than a U.S. market 2011 Mazda 2. Great!
There’s so much going right for this car, from an adorable application of Mazda’s still sexy design language to its gorgeous Soul Red paint. I even love how Mazda bucked trends and deleted the giant infotainment screens that fill cars. Then it all falls apart because Mazda’s vision for the future of car tech is just ugh. Which I’ll get to, I promise.
Crossover City Car
The Vision X-Compact is a design study, and if you were wondering what the “X” is supposed to mean, well, Mazda says it means “cross.” So, this is supposed to be a bit of a crossover city car. It does sort of have the proportions of a crossover, and I do like the idea of pumping some crossover traits into a city car. It’s nice to have a high-riding seat in a runabout! “Is it an EV, PHEV, or ICE?” Mazda doesn’t say.
No matter what might power it, I am in absolute love with this design. I adore it so much that, if Mazda had announced the Vision X-Compact as a production car available with a manual transmission, I’d be seriously considering buying my first new car purchase in nearly a decade. The Vision X-Compact is a continuation of Mazda’s brilliant and timeless Kodo “Soul of Motion” design language. For more than a decade, Mazdas have largely avoided the sharp creases and jagged edges of their competitors and instead featured smooth, flowing lines.
Something I love about Mazda’s Kodo design philosophy is how it plays with paint. A Kodo Mazda in Soul Red has such beautiful depth that you don’t really see with any other car on the road in Mazda’s price brackets. It’s also awesome that Mazdas still largely look kind and happy in a world where angry grilles come from the factory with almost everyone else.
This is a properly small car, too. Its wheelbase is only 99 inches, which is about eight inches shorter than a Mazda 3’s wheelbase and only an inch longer than the old Mazda 2’s. I’m also a sucker for the glass roof and Volvo-like taillights. I have no notes and no real complaints about the design.
The interior also has a lot going for it, too. Look at that, Mazda deleted the entire infotainment system! That’s great! I can forgive the car for not having any buttons or visible controls. It is a design study, after all, not a prototype.
That said, I do wish that designers did something a bit more exciting inside than a flat, entirely featureless dashboard. Somehow, the interior design of the X-Compact is so simplistic that a Tesla Model 3’s interior looks busy in comparison. I think the lack of a giant tablet should have been an excuse to make something striking.
The only screens in this cockpit are the tiny instrument cluster and your phone, which would sit right next to the instrument cluster. Alright, so how would this car work without buttons or screens? I’m sorry you asked.
Wait, What?
Let’s just jump right into it with Mazda’s blurb about the car:
The MAZDA VISION X-COMPACT is a model designed to deepen the bond between people and cars through the fusion of a human sensory digital model and empathetic AI. Acting like a close companion, it is capable of engaging in natural conversation and suggesting destinations, helping expand the driver’s world. This represents Mazda’s vision for the future of smart mobility, where vehicles and people form an emotional connection, much like a friend.
Mazda says elsewhere that the AI is supposed to help drivers form a “heartfelt relationship” with their car. Mazda designer Kaisei Takahashi clarified what this means, and it’s something, from Autoblog:
“Picture this: you are behind the wheel, but you are not alone. There is a warm presence, not intrusive, just aware. It might say, ‘Hey, remember that cafe you mentioned last week? There is a fun back road that will get us there. Way more interesting than this highway.’”
“In the future, a Mazda vehicle will be a companion that makes every journey richer. Like spending time with a friend, it will invite dimension, variety, satisfaction, and a feeling of being understood.”
Apparently, the AI is also programmed to give you words of encouragement like “Ooh, nice merge!” or “Blind spot, left side.”
We are living in an era where the buzzword “AI” cannot be avoided anymore. AI is everywhere, from your email client to once-simple tools like schedulers and reminders. There are AIs to write blog posts, there are AIs to research any topic, there are AI girlfriends, and, of course, there’s AI “art.” It’s everywhere, and as we have written now numerous times in the past, AI has gone from being a genuinely useful tool to reduce busywork to stealing the work of artists and pumping out misinformation and disinformation at an alarming rate. You can’t even use AI for anything informative or educational since it’s just going to lie to you most of the time.
But I get why AI is bleeding into cars. People use AI every day, and Chinese car buyers are loving their car AIs, so here we are. I admit, maybe I’m a bit of that person yelling at a cloud meme.
Mazda, you had me in the first half. This concept car is undeniably gorgeous, and a really small car would be so fun. But I don’t want any of those AI gimmicks in my next car. I don’t need my car to be my girlfriend or boyfriend. I don’t want an Internet-connected car watching me and listening to me. I don’t want an AI to attempt and fail to give me a good driving route. Finding great roads yourself is one of the great parts about driving!
So Close, Mazda
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the deletion of the big central tablet, but I’d take a giant tablet over AI any day, any time.
Sadly, and thankfully, this is only a design study, and Mazda is not going to put an AI boyfriend into your car just yet. Though Mazda does say this is its vision for the future. I’m going to hope that the future is very far out. I suppose the car is sort of unrealistic, anyway. If small cars were a hot market, beloved nameplates like the Honda Fit would still be around.
Still, if Mazda kicked the AI buzzwords to the curb and put this into production, I think I’d be one of the dozen or so people who would buy the X-Compact. It’s just so cute and so awesome. Keep up the great design work, Mazda.
Cute as a button on the outside, a hard NOPE on the inside.
As much as I LOVE Fiat 500s, and I do love me a 500 from base Pop to full-fat Abarth, city cars are pointless and pretty much a non-starter in the sprawling U S of A unless you are dumb enough to be driving around Northeastern city centers all the time. In the rest of the country, a Canyonero works just as a well as a Smart. Which is to say it will still suck, but at least you will be more comfortable and less likely to die when another Canyonero punts you in to next week.
The first gen 500e had a restricted top speed of 88 mph. I think that’s high enough for highway use.
I completely agree. I am also perfectly fine with a 0-60 time of 10-12 seconds. Which is still faster than the average moron manages despite having 300hp under foot these days.
“In the rest of the country, a Canyonero works just as a well as a Smart.”
Until you try to park it it in the garage.
Who parks a car in their garage? That’s where all the useless crap they have accumulated but won’t throw away lives.
You can still squeeze a Smart in there though. Maybe.
Or would that doom the Smart to become another useless piece of crap in there? I dunno.
Pretty sure Smarts start out that way.
Though that said, I still have the coworker who owns a pair of them, because they let he and his wife both park in the tiny driveway of a near downtown Boston house and not have to compete in the full-contact Boston street parking cage fights. Which ultimately is the ONLY reason to own a Smart in the first place, ease of parking is literally their Raison de être,
“Which ultimately is the ONLY reason to own a Smart in the first place, ease of parking is literally their Raison de être”
I expect Mercedes has opinions on that.
Still parking is as good a reason as any to pick a particular car and better than many others like “safety for me and mine alone”.
It was literally the design reason for the Smart. A car that could park three to a single urban parking space by parking perpendicular to the curb. There is no other reason to make it so ridiculously short and compromise just about every other aspect of the car.
Again, not a bad thing. My only real issue with these is the somewhat underwhelming fuel efficiency on premium fuel.
Who cares on a city car? You aren’t going to drive the thing enough miles for it to matter. Or if you are you are doing it wrong.
I care in an academic sense.
When the larger city cars that I’ve driven like a VW Polo with far more room, twice the doors, a peppy Blumotion gas engine of twice the displacement that can get 4.9L/100km 48 US mpg (my AVERAGE fuel consumption over nearly a thousand miles of comfortable mixed use driving even with a completely packed car), well that makes me wonder if the engineers at Smart are really so Smart.
It was a tough engineering brief. It’s a microscopic engine that has to work really hard. in something that has horrible aero and isn’t actually all that light for the size of it (to get what crash protection it has, which is actually really good for the size of it). And ultimately, the gasoline engine was a bit of an afterthought – they were very obviously intended to be mostly diesels. Fuel economy was just not a priority – fitting into a parking space sideways was the #1 item on the list. And like I said, used as intended, nobody is (or should be) pounding thousands and thousands of miles on these things around a congested city. Different horses for different courses. Not every car needs to do everything well.
Twice the engine probably would have resulted in significantly better fuel economy, but it wouldn’t fit.
“Twice the engine probably would have resulted in significantly better fuel economy, but it wouldn’t fit”
Oh, you think so?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/300hp-smart-car-with-turbo-hayabusa-swap-shocks-the-street/vi-AA1PauJD
If a local yokel can get a turbocharged 1300cc Hayabusa in there I’m sure the engineers at Smart could have figured something out.
Not within the design brief. I am sure that would meet Mercedes durability and warranty standards and fit within the project budget. Not.
The point wasn’t that a 300 hp turbo Hayabusa was used. The point is that it did fit even with the extra plumbing of the turbo and it works in there without overheating or exploding, even when it’s beat on.
Design brief or no this shows Mercedes COULD have put in a bigger, more powerful engine. And they did eventually.
“Mercedes durability and warranty standards”
I’m not sure that’s saying much given that the successor to their own M160 engine was the M132, a cribbed Mitsubishi 3B21 engine also used in the decidedly low rent Mitsubishi i
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_3B2_engine
What’s interesting is the original turbocharged 0.7L3B20T Mitsubishi engine put out nearly identical power and torque on regular gas to the 1.0L NA MB M132 on premium.
Sure, they COULD have done it. For $100K and sold three of them to Arab Shieks.
Get. A. Grip.
Oh come on! Mercedes was dumping a million dollars A DAY on R&D and they cribbed an engine from Mitsubishi, arguably making it worse with premium gas. That’s just lazy.
The engine literally fit the design brief, and it was more than adequate for the use case. I assume it was also cheap. These were relatively cheap cars in Europe, if not-so-much on this side of the pond where people like to buy cars by the pound.
You have a truly bizarre fixation on premium gas. Tuning for premium gets a marketing advantage of being able to advertise a little more power than it would make of regular. Nobody but you and a few other strange nerds on the Internet cares. You can run premium and squeeze a little more power out of the thing, or don’t.
“You have a truly bizarre fixation on premium gas”
Because the Smart is not a high strung hypercar. It’s not even a performance car. It’s a cheap, tiny economy car. You know what one of the main selling points is for economy cars? Fuel efficiency on cheap(er) regular gas.
If this engine sported a compression ratio of 14:1 and was getting 200 hp out of that single liter then premium would have been understandable. But it doesn’t. It’s specs are very mid.
“Tuning for premium gets a marketing advantage of being able to advertise a little more power than it would make of regular.”
Sure, in the laziest way possible.
How lazy?
This engine yields exactly the same 50 kW, 68 ft lb as Honda’s ECA1 ICE that powered the first gen Insight over a decade earlier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_E0_engine
And it did that on regular gas even with a compression ratio of 10.8:1 and a lean burn of up to 25.8 to 1. There are 1st gen Insights with over 300k miles on the clock and still going strong so it’s not like reliability was sacrificed.
That’s a lot more impressive than cribbing an engine from another manufacturer and making it worse.
“Nobody but you and a few other strange nerds on the Internet cares.”
If that were true regular gas wouldn’t exist. All cars would take premium, only premium would be sold and nobody would blink an eye.
However regular outsells premium by a factor of 5.6 at the pump. So Americans who buy gas vote with their wallets and the winner is overwhelmingly regular. The majority of cars call for regular gas not premium. So American car buyers also vote for regular with their wallets.
“You can run premium and squeeze a little more power out of the thing, or don’t”
Since MB tuned the engine for premium and the advertised performance is on premium it’s more accurate to say:
You can run regular and get less power and fuel efficiency out of the thing, or don’t and pay more for fuel.
That’s not gonna fly with economy car customers though.
But it’s NOT a typical economy car. If someone wants something like that, they can just buy a Polo or Twingo or Fit or whatever floats their boat. It is a car that was designed and created for ONE specific use case, almost to the exclusion of all others – to be as easy as possible to park in crowded urban areas, and in many places in Europe, you could get very discounted parking for them because they fit three in a normal space, plus being able to take miniscule leftover spaces once pay and display became a thing. Don’t compare apples and oranges.
And it was still very much a premium car, and most premium cars actually do call for premium fuel (not that it matters, they will generally run just fine on the cheap stuff too). That sundry hairshirt-mobiles don’t is neither here nor there. Outside a few wierdos and people who actually had that use case like my coworker, here in the US it was a car with no real reason for existing. Though now that many US cities ALSO use “pay and display” rather then lined spaces and meters, they make more sense today than they did back when they were introduced.
The overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans have no interest in a car this small whether it runs on regular, premium, or distilled virgin unicorn tears. But if you need one or just like them like Mercedes does, you buy one. Or in her case, a half dozen or whatever. No accounting for taste.
“Don’t compare apples and oranges.”
If you want apples to apples then lets look at the Scion iQ. Similar dimensions, exact same use case, same power but better fuel economy with the 1.0 I3 and same fuel economy but much more power out of a 1.33L I4 and oh by the way it does that on regular in either engine. Mercedes would have done better copying them. Since the 1.3L I4 Hayabusa turbo fit in the Smart it’s plausible the Toyota 1.3 I4 could have been made to fit. I’m quite sure a Toyota engine would have easily met the high standards set by MB satisfied by that Mitsubishi engine.
“And it was still very much a premium car”
How so? Nothing about the Smart looks “premium”. What puts a Smart on par with say a Lexus 200h? Or an Aston Martin Cygnet? Both those are as premium as it gets in this category and they both sip regular gas.
It was sold by Mercedes. Smart is to Mercedes as MINI is to BMW. Not economy cars.
A Cygnet IS the Toyota in a party frock – and it was a total flop. So was the iQ itself for that matter. It’s also rather bigger than a Smart. They did not get the parking discounts, which rather defeated the purpose of something so small. The Smart rather handily outsold it in both the US and globally. And for a lot more years.
Seriously – get over this premium fuel fixation. It’s a choice that automakers make for a variety of reasons that I have already explained. Mercedes certainly COULD have specified regular. They chose not to. Instead they chose to have a spec with 5hp more or however much difference it made in that mouse motor. Obviously, none of the several hundred thousand people who bought the things cared a bit about that or that many other cars got better fuel economy. The Smart does exactly ONE thing exceedingly well, and if you don’t need that capability there is really no point in owning one.
“It was sold by Mercedes. Smart is to Mercedes as MINI is to BMW.”
So what?
“Not economy cars.”
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it, however it is only your opinion. I have yet to see your evidence to support it.
These sources however show Smart (and Mini) are classified as economy cars:
“Some of the popular economy cars include:
Hyundai Accent
Volkswagen Golf
Mitsubishi Mirage
Kia Rio
Ford Fiesta
Volkswagen Beetle
Smart Car
Chevy Spark”
https://goodcar.com/blog/economy-vs-compact-car-differences
“What is an economy car? Smart Car”
https://www.budget.com/en/cars/vehicles/us/a
Here’s a list of economy cars including Mini Cooper:
https://vehq.com/economy-cars-redefined-affordable-driving-last-30-years/
The only evidence I have seen to support your claim is this:
“Mini cars
The Mini rental car group is reserved for the smallest and most fuel-efficient cars available for rent. Mini cars are suitable for 2-3 passengers (or possibly 2 adults and 2 kids depending on the model), can hold 1-2 bags, have 2 doors, and are usually hatchbacks. Some rental companies don’t use the Mini group, including cars of this size in the Economy group instead.”
“Mini” may also be called “Smart”:
https://carfromjapan.com/article/economy-vs-compact-cars/
In other words “Mini” or “Smart” whatever you want to call it is a subset of “Economy”. So like it or not both Mini and Smart ARE considered economy cars.
Seriously – get over this premium fuel fixation.”
What part of “Cheap Bastard” don’t you get?
“Mercedes certainly COULD have specified regular. They chose not to. Instead they chose to have a spec with 5hp more”
Because that was the easiest, cheapest way to do so. In that decision they passed that buck to the customer as an extra running cost. That’s lazy. They also put this in the manual:
“To maintain the engine’s durability and performance, premium unleaded gasoline must be used.”
Premium isn’t an option as far as MB is concerned. Nice.
Prove that the Smart was NOT sold as a premium car via Mercedes-Benz dealers. Some random Internet site (that is CLEARLY wrong, because in no way was a BMW-era MINI ever an economy car) is in no why proof.
Whatever dude. Obviously, I am not going to convince you that none of this matters, and you are not going to convince me that you aren’t an idiot. So I am done here.
“Prove that the Smart was NOT sold as a premium car via Mercedes-Benz dealers”
That’s your claim to prove that it was. Not that it matters, marketeers can call a pig whatever they like, it doesn’t change the fact they’re selling a pig.
The weird thing is you keep claiming Smart is a premium car but aside from being sold at MB dealerships and your claims MB sold it as a premium car you haven’t listed any thing “premium” about it other than the fuel MB insists it requires. What’s “premium” about a car that in the year of our lord of 2013 did not come standard with even a radio or A/C?:
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/smart/fortwo/2013
Was it the “jerky transmission”? The “sluggish acceleration”? Are those premium features in opposite world?
“So I am done here”
OK, nice chatting with you.
X for Cross, as it has made Mercedes very cross.
Unrelated joke from an old TV show. Two nuns are driving in Transylvania, and a vampire shows up in the road in front of the car. The driving nun slams on the brakes and tells the other nun “Quick, show him your cross.” The other nun winds down the window and leans out, shouting “Get out of the road you toothy git.”
That made me laugh way more than it should have.
The X is a reminder to take this car off of your list of possible purchases.
The car is interesting, but the controls, or lack thereof, kill it.
Ugh. I’ve been a big Mazda fan for years as they have a great driving feel, and my wife and I have had 4 Mazdas over the last 20 years. But every recent announcement I’ve seen from them has me losing interest. I want gauges and buttons and no AI BS, thank you.
Does it sing “Daisy” as you are pulling the fuse?
As for buying the car it goes from appealing to a hard NO for me also.
Good call there Mercedes, bad call Mazda and their little “smart” spy.
“Turn on the music.”
“I’m afraid I can’t do that.”
“I’m afraid I can’t do that, Dave.”
“WTF, car! My name is NOT Dave!”
Just what do you think you are you doing CSRoad? I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a few tokes and think things over.
People have been talking to each other for a very long time, and still haven’t figured out how to do it right.
Mazda: Ever wonder what would happen if we crossbred a Fiat 500 with ChatGPT?
Everyone: What? No! Who the hell would ever think of that? Shut up and make Miatas.
I really love the front end design. If you go by Jason Torchinsky’s ‘front-end as face’ thing, this front end face looks like a lion cub.
If you are deaf or mute or have a speech impediment, you’ll just have to suffer, I guess.
Or be spared the suffering. It’s a matter of perspective, really.
I mean, the whole “this car will be your friend and can talk to you” thing has been an aspect of concept cars since the 80’s. And I will say that some degree of AI integration wouldn’t necessarily be the end of the world – just enough so you can give commands in a conversational way and not have to memorize some robotic line.
Where I could really use an AI is the check engine messages. I don’t need to see code P991. The AI should just tell me “there was one mis-fire event detected. Based on similar models with similar mileage, this is most likely caused by an ignition coil starting to go bad. You should get it tested if it happens again.”
That’s another good integration. AI is just a tool like anything else. It shouldn’t be shoehorned into every aspect of our lives, but it isn’t something we should necessarily be clutching our pearls over, either.
Having a magsafe puck right next to a tach/speedo combo would actually be pretty nice. I’d hate having to use the phone for climate like the image suggests, but for nav and possibly music, I don’t see any issue. It wouldn’t be difficult to fit all the needed info on a smaller circular gauge.
From Mazda’s perspective, the biggest flaw is getting your customers too emotionally invested in a product they desperately want you to trade in every three to five years. I can hear the conversation now… “Hey friend, I can’t help but notice you’re pulling into the Mazda dealer… is there something you, umm, want to tell me?”
Like the AI Spielberg movie.
Are we getting to the era of jealous cars. Should I worry that my car will become spiteful because I was checking out the rear of that RS6 wagon I saw in traffic the other day.
We all know what happens when cars get angry. Even Herbie has tried to run down at least one person I can remember off the top of my head.
“I’ve seen a pileup of five chicken trucks off the shoulder of I-80. Time to die.”
I saw AI and skipped the rest. Nope.
I don’t even have voice controls enabled on my phone. And despite people in my workplace using AI for meeting notes and summaries, I type everything out myself and organize it. I find that helps me better understand the material, form questions, and next steps for a given project. AI can and will do great things in the science/medical fields, but the idea of interacting with it on a daily basis in my fucking car sounds like a nightmare.
That said, if all the AI assistant nonsense could be turned off, that would be a fun little car. Of course due to its size it almost certainly won’t be sold in the States.
I’m a controller for a medium-size hotel and it drives me NUTS when our managers-on-duty use Chat GPT to write their shift passdowns. We hired you with the expectation that you could communicate properly, not get AI to do it for you.
A person of mine own heart. I do not have a portable telephone but I do have some oak cabinets that hold index cards. A system that I developed whilst writing a thesis; visitors think I am mad until they ask me a question.
Hello Jalop staff:
Fix the damn sign in button on your site or I will cancel my membership today! I can’t login on desktop or laptop or tablet because ???? I get “invalid code” every time. I can only comment on my phone and it’s a pain in the ass. Fix or I cancel. Thanks!
I’ll get Matt on the case!
Thank you Mercedes. I love this site but this is really annoying and not a good look imo. Phone commenting is a pain (sending this is a pain!)
Hey, while we’re talking general feedback… would it be possible to implement an “add to glovebox” button for each article right on the main page? I love the idea of the glovebox but don’t like that I have to click on an article, let it load, click add to glovebox for later and then close it. Kinda defeats a lot of the convenience of the glovebox
It works if you delete your entire browsing history in your browser’s settings. : /
That didn’t work ????
RIP
I only want AI in my car if it is housed inside the driver from a Johnny Cab!
Are we witnessing the second bubble economy? The first bubble in the late 80’s and early 90’s killed plenty of nice Mazda’s, but just how hard will the ai-bubble hit?
Looking at the lack of Physical controls on this Car, I can only wonder how long it will be before someone comes with, say, Box that goes on a cellphone mount ( like the phone is here) that uses BT, or an ODBC connection with like dials and physical switches as an after market.
Or did I just give OEM’s a new subscription idea?
The US is not the world. This is a US problem.
Crossovers are gaining a lot of ground pretty much everywhere, even in countries where there are still small cars. Smart makes nothing but crossovers now. I mean, Mazda could have called this a hatch or a city car (it is just a design study, after all), but decided to call it a crossover.
But yeah, maybe it was a bit much to say that trucks are taking over the world. That is still largely an American problem. I’ll change that.
I wonder if AI can understand a thick Louisiana accent.
The other instant nope is how little space there is between the tires and the fender. One pothole and it’s toast.
I bet a production design would increase that dimension. As usual, the art is exaggerated.
Sigh. What I hate so much is I feel like my generation (zoomers) are the ones who would eat this up. And I guess maybe younger millennials. We have such an unhealthy relationship with technology in general, and I know several people in my demographic who are uninterested or afraid of driving.
We need to keep encouraging young people to get interested in cars.
Small hood space, lower power requirements? I can think of an engine well-suited to that…time to stop teasing and slap a rotary in this thing
We will finally be able to talk to our cars like Kitt from Knight Rider only to be confronted with the reality that we do not in fact want to do that.
There’s a great many things out there that, while we find are cool or fun to watch on a screen, do not translate to real life. A lot of relationships have seen strain over that disconnect, cause we all know what the internet is for.
I’ve always suspected LCARS from Star Trek would be like this. A fully touch-based interface is trash for any kind of rapid input.
Of course, they get around it by having an AI that magically understands intent and always does the right thing (unless the plot dictates that it malfunction). 😉
Kitt was an AI that would have laughed at our current AI’s. We don’t want our current AI’s, and they way they are used is not helpful (in most cases)
I mean sure the capability isn’t there but the question is does that actually matter. Is having a conversation with our car something that we actually want to do?
And you all thought that CJ from todays shootout was pricy. At least you do not need a cell phone to drive it and It will not feed you wistful words of encouragement and it is about the same size.
The new Mazda Mechanophilia: “We’re trying to make it weird!”
As long as there is an option to turn it off. Please. Love the car otherwise.