5 ms·

In case anyone one else was wondering what these "levels of autonomy" that the article's author so haphazardly assumed was general knowledge, see SAE J3016A[1],

In case anyone one else was wondering what these "levels of autonomy" that the article's author so haphazardly assumed was general knowledge, see SAE J3016A[1], which is free to download with a registered SAE account...or your favorite unofficial method. Table 2 on p. 19 of the 30-page recommendation is a nice TL;DR summary. Which begs the question...what part of Tesla Autopilot doesn't satisfy the SAE definition? [1] http://standards.sae.org/j3016_201609/ http://standards.sae.org/j3016_201609/

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
I found the Consumer Reports version easier to read, if at the cost of precision. http://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/levels-of-car-automation/ http://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/levels-of-...
- cmarschner 9y ago
  Summary: - level 2: "hands off" - level 3: "eyes off" - level 4: "mind off"
  - jimmcslim 9y ago
    I remember reading recently that we should probably be avoiding level 3 in production altogether (and possibly even level 2), since the general populace doesn't have the capacity for responding quickly to failures in automatic guidance systems; unlike perhaps aircraft pilots who are intimately aware of the limitations of the systems.
    - johansch 9y ago
      https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/27/11518826/volvo-tesla-autopilot-autonomous-self-driving-car https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/27/11518826/volvo-tesla-auto... "Victor says that Volvo believes that Level 3 autonomy, where the driver needs to be ready to take over at a moment's notice, is an unsafe solution. Because the driver is theoretically freed up to work on email or watch a video while the car drives itself, the company believes it is unrealistic to expect the driver to be ready to take over at a moment's notice and still have the car operate itself safely.
      - phs318u 9y ago
        Absolutely agree, and not just because of the reaction time, but the lack of context in the human that has been reading their emails/whatever. The first thing the human will try and do is instinctively look up and around to assess the nature of the threat. That takes time. For mine, I can't see the insurance industry being too happy with anything between L1 and L4 being on the roads in serious numbers.
    - skgoa 9y ago
      But that argument ignores that these systems help stop accidents from happening 99% of the time and focuses only on the 1% when they fail. (numbers are made up) Automation has lead to accidents in aviation as well. But it's still being pushed forward, because when looking at total miles traveled, more automation tends to be significantly safer. The same principle holds true for ground vehicles.
      - CamperBob2 9y ago
        Driving is infinitely harder than flying, from the perspective of a truly autonomous system. Once at altitude, there isn't much to run into. There are also very few possible emergencies that demand the pilot's attention within the next few seconds. Midair collisions are about the only exception I can think of, and there are already automated systems in place to prevent those. Bird strikes might be another, but those don't tend to coincide with periods of autopilot usage. For a motor vehicle, though, the idea that "eyes off" and "mind off" should exist as separate levels of autonomy is just nuts. "Eyes off" will absolutely be interpreted as "mind off" by the majority of real-world drivers. It doesn't make sense to offer an "eyes off" solution at all, IMHO. Wait until we can genuinely call it a "mind off" solution.
        Retric 9y ago
        There are a huge range of failures while flying which is why small aircraft are so dangerous. If nothing breaks and the weather is perfect then sure it can seem safe, but in practice you can't make those assumptions. Saying commercial aviation is safe is like saying school busses are safe, it ignores people going out in bad weather etc. Commercial aviation has a great safty record beause they are cautious, not because it's an easy problem.
        mannykannot 9y ago
        I don't follow your argument - are you aware of how much flying is conducted under autopilot? Commercial aviation is very safe.
    - t0mbstone 9y ago
      The reality is that planes can be automated completely. The only reason they aren't is because of public perception, and the fact that if there's a bug and it crashes, 300 people die all at once. If one or two automated cars crash due to glitches, however, the risk is perceived as being a lot smaller because those individual incidents would theoretically affect fewer people. Also, car automation would end up saving more lives overall in the grand scheme, and would also solve a lot of traffic problems in the long run.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

I found the Consumer Reports version easier to read, if at the cost of precision. http://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/levels-of-car-automation/ http://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/levels-of-...

cmarschner 9y ago
Summary: - level 2: "hands off" - level 3: "eyes off" - level 4: "mind off"
- jimmcslim 9y ago
  I remember reading recently that we should probably be avoiding level 3 in production altogether (and possibly even level 2), since the general populace doesn't have the capacity for responding quickly to failures in automatic guidance systems; unlike perhaps aircraft pilots who are intimately aware of the limitations of the systems.
  - johansch 9y ago
    https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/27/11518826/volvo-tesla-autopilot-autonomous-self-driving-car https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/27/11518826/volvo-tesla-auto... "Victor says that Volvo believes that Level 3 autonomy, where the driver needs to be ready to take over at a moment's notice, is an unsafe solution. Because the driver is theoretically freed up to work on email or watch a video while the car drives itself, the company believes it is unrealistic to expect the driver to be ready to take over at a moment's notice and still have the car operate itself safely.
    - phs318u 9y ago
      Absolutely agree, and not just because of the reaction time, but the lack of context in the human that has been reading their emails/whatever. The first thing the human will try and do is instinctively look up and around to assess the nature of the threat. That takes time. For mine, I can't see the insurance industry being too happy with anything between L1 and L4 being on the roads in serious numbers.
  - skgoa 9y ago
    But that argument ignores that these systems help stop accidents from happening 99% of the time and focuses only on the 1% when they fail. (numbers are made up) Automation has lead to accidents in aviation as well. But it's still being pushed forward, because when looking at total miles traveled, more automation tends to be significantly safer. The same principle holds true for ground vehicles.
    - CamperBob2 9y ago
      Driving is infinitely harder than flying, from the perspective of a truly autonomous system. Once at altitude, there isn't much to run into. There are also very few possible emergencies that demand the pilot's attention within the next few seconds. Midair collisions are about the only exception I can think of, and there are already automated systems in place to prevent those. Bird strikes might be another, but those don't tend to coincide with periods of autopilot usage. For a motor vehicle, though, the idea that "eyes off" and "mind off" should exist as separate levels of autonomy is just nuts. "Eyes off" will absolutely be interpreted as "mind off" by the majority of real-world drivers. It doesn't make sense to offer an "eyes off" solution at all, IMHO. Wait until we can genuinely call it a "mind off" solution.
      - Retric 9y ago
        There are a huge range of failures while flying which is why small aircraft are so dangerous. If nothing breaks and the weather is perfect then sure it can seem safe, but in practice you can't make those assumptions. Saying commercial aviation is safe is like saying school busses are safe, it ignores people going out in bad weather etc. Commercial aviation has a great safty record beause they are cautious, not because it's an easy problem.
        mannykannot 9y ago
        I don't follow your argument - are you aware of how much flying is conducted under autopilot? Commercial aviation is very safe.
  - t0mbstone 9y ago
    The reality is that planes can be automated completely. The only reason they aren't is because of public perception, and the fact that if there's a bug and it crashes, 300 people die all at once. If one or two automated cars crash due to glitches, however, the risk is perceived as being a lot smaller because those individual incidents would theoretically affect fewer people. Also, car automation would end up saving more lives overall in the grand scheme, and would also solve a lot of traffic problems in the long run.