34 ms·

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

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.
      - Retric 9y ago
        Autopilots on commercial aircraft work well, because of the infrastructure surrounding them. Small aircraft is not commercial aviation. One of the most common failures in small aircraft is running out of fuel and then having the sudden need to find somewhere to land. That's a very rare problem in commercial aviation. Basically, commercial aviation succeeds because it avoids the vast number of failure modes. Fully automated car autopilots are not a simpler problem, they simply need to deal with the mess which aircraft autopilots sidestep. Ex: 747's autopilot does not have a look for an open field I can land in which I can then take off from again after I refuel.
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.

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.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Autopilots on commercial aircraft work well, because of the infrastructure surrounding them. Small aircraft is not commercial aviation. One of the most common failures in small aircraft is running out of fuel and then having the sudden need to find somewhere to land. That's a very rare problem in commercial aviation. Basically, commercial aviation succeeds because it avoids the vast number of failure modes. Fully automated car autopilots are not a simpler problem, they simply need to deal with the mess which aircraft autopilots sidestep. Ex: 747's autopilot does not have a look for an open field I can land in which I can then take off from again after I refuel.

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.