3 ms·

> Pratt is clearly talking about the difference between Level 4 and Level 5 in his first two answers No, Pratt is saying that manufacturers are hyping level 4

> Pratt is clearly talking about the difference between Level 4 and Level 5 in his first two answers No, Pratt is saying that manufacturers are hyping level 4 as being around the corner, but it is not. Pratt does not think the claims for level 4 are sufficiently backed up: "...That’s Level 4. And I wouldn’t even stop there: I would ask, “Is that at all times of the day, is it in all weather, is it in all traffic?” > Level 4 doesn't require driver attention, it just requires the driver to be (instantly?) available if the system has a problem How exactly would that work? You don't have to be attentive but you must be available to take over? At any rate, this is not the definition provided by the Society of Automotive Engineers [1], which is the definition NHTSA has adopted for levels of autonomous vehicles. SAE says for level 4: "the driving mode-specific performance by an automated driving system of all aspects of the dynamic driving task, even if a human driver does not respond appropriately to a request to intervene" In other words, the system could request human intervention, but it will still do something even if the human does not respond. Wikipedia appears to have either summarized this in different words or has a different version. > this change-over is the situation that Pratt worries about in his fourth answer. I wholeheartedly agree with Pratt that "In some ways, the worst case is a car that will need driver intervention once every 200,000 miles..." [1] https://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf https://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf

jessriedel 10y ago
> "...That’s Level 4. And I wouldn’t even stop there: I would ask, “Is that at all times of the day, is it in all weather, is it in all traffic?” But that doesn't actually contradict stale2002 or diminish the enormous potential economic importance by more than (say) a factor of 2. Level 4 systems that are available to use 60% of the time are still revolutionary, and compatible with both stale2002's and Pratt's comments. > How exactly would that work? See my comment to function_seven for my speculation. Although I used the Wikipedia definition, I believe everything I said is compatible with the definition from SAE you have quoted. In particular "the system could request human intervention, but it will still do something even if the human does not respond" does not conflict with "it just requires the driver to be available if the system has a problem" because the "something" the system may do is bring the car to a rapid (or even emergency) stop. This can become dangerous if the human can't resume control within a few seconds, but is an easily acceptable risk to occur once every 100k miles as a price of Level 4 autonomy.
- unityByFreedom 10y ago
  > But that doesn't actually contradict stale2002 stale2002 said the article is talking about level 5, and that level 4 is around the corner. Yet the article is talking about level 5, 4, and below. It is saying some car companies are overhyping their capability to reach levels 4 and 5. Pratt feels even level 4 is not right around the corner. > Level 4 systems that are available to use 60% of the time are still revolutionary To reach a certain level, you must operate under the definition of that level 100% of the time. You can't be level 4 60% of the time. That's level 3. I agree it would be revolutionary to be at level 3. Right now no car is there. They're all at level 2, which require human monitoring of the driving situation.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    > To reach a certain level, you must operate under the definition of that level 100% of the time. You can't be level 4 60% of the time. That's level 3 No. I'm looking at the SAE definitions, where it says > A particular vehicle may have multiple driving automation features such that it could operate at different levels depending upon the feature(s) that are engaged. clearly indicating that the levels describe modes of operation, not immutable car classifications. Regardless, this has just become a semantical dispute. stale2002's comment makes the most sense under the interpretation "cars that that can drive at Level 4 60% of the time are just around the corner", and that comment is a valuable counterpoint to the reasonable interpretation of Pratt's interview.
    - unityByFreedom 10y ago
      > the levels describe modes of operation, not immutable car classifications Look at the column where human attention is required ("Monitoring of Driving Environment"). Every car in existence requires human monitoring in every driving mode. The moment attention is not required, the car company becomes liable. Volvo will release a level 4 car this year where they assume liability, however, that is only for a hundred people in Sweden. "Around the corner" means widely available, and that's just not the case. Right now Tesla does not reliably save the data from its accidents. How could a car company assume liability when they can't even save the data?

jessriedel 10y ago

> "...That’s Level 4. And I wouldn’t even stop there: I would ask, “Is that at all times of the day, is it in all weather, is it in all traffic?” But that doesn't actually contradict stale2002 or diminish the enormous potential economic importance by more than (say) a factor of 2. Level 4 systems that are available to use 60% of the time are still revolutionary, and compatible with both stale2002's and Pratt's comments. > How exactly would that work? See my comment to function_seven for my speculation. Although I used the Wikipedia definition, I believe everything I said is compatible with the definition from SAE you have quoted. In particular "the system could request human intervention, but it will still do something even if the human does not respond" does not conflict with "it just requires the driver to be available if the system has a problem" because the "something" the system may do is bring the car to a rapid (or even emergency) stop. This can become dangerous if the human can't resume control within a few seconds, but is an easily acceptable risk to occur once every 100k miles as a price of Level 4 autonomy.

unityByFreedom 10y ago
> But that doesn't actually contradict stale2002 stale2002 said the article is talking about level 5, and that level 4 is around the corner. Yet the article is talking about level 5, 4, and below. It is saying some car companies are overhyping their capability to reach levels 4 and 5. Pratt feels even level 4 is not right around the corner. > Level 4 systems that are available to use 60% of the time are still revolutionary To reach a certain level, you must operate under the definition of that level 100% of the time. You can't be level 4 60% of the time. That's level 3. I agree it would be revolutionary to be at level 3. Right now no car is there. They're all at level 2, which require human monitoring of the driving situation.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  > To reach a certain level, you must operate under the definition of that level 100% of the time. You can't be level 4 60% of the time. That's level 3 No. I'm looking at the SAE definitions, where it says > A particular vehicle may have multiple driving automation features such that it could operate at different levels depending upon the feature(s) that are engaged. clearly indicating that the levels describe modes of operation, not immutable car classifications. Regardless, this has just become a semantical dispute. stale2002's comment makes the most sense under the interpretation "cars that that can drive at Level 4 60% of the time are just around the corner", and that comment is a valuable counterpoint to the reasonable interpretation of Pratt's interview.
  - unityByFreedom 10y ago
    > the levels describe modes of operation, not immutable car classifications Look at the column where human attention is required ("Monitoring of Driving Environment"). Every car in existence requires human monitoring in every driving mode. The moment attention is not required, the car company becomes liable. Volvo will release a level 4 car this year where they assume liability, however, that is only for a hundred people in Sweden. "Around the corner" means widely available, and that's just not the case. Right now Tesla does not reliably save the data from its accidents. How could a car company assume liability when they can't even save the data?