4 ms·

> 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 i

> 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?
- stale2002 10y ago
  Yeah, exactly, 60% level 4 is still a crazy awesome future that I want to live in.

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?
stale2002 10y ago
Yeah, exactly, 60% level 4 is still a crazy awesome future that I want to live in.