3 ms·
The article is terrible at describing it - and really, the entire level scale is terrible - but there is a real important distinction between level 2 and level
by jowday 6y ago
The article is terrible at describing it - and really, the entire level scale is terrible - but there is a real important distinction between level 2 and level 3.
Level 2 means that the car automates several different parts of the driving task, but that you must be ready to take over at a moments notice - you still have to keep your hands on the wheel and your attention focused on the driving task in case you need to intervene. This is what Autopilot, and the FSD beta is. You can turn them on but you have to keep your hands on the wheel and your attention focused. This also means you're legally liable for any accidents, since the onus is still on the driver to intervene.
Level 3 basically means that, in certain situations, you can take your attention off driving completely and play on your phone, read a book, etc. The car might still need you to take over in certain situations, but it will warn you in advance and give you enough time to transition back to driving. Companies have largely shied away from pursuing level 3 system because it puts the legal burden on them - if the car gets in a crash when it's operating at 'level 3', the onus is on the company, since the driver was not told to be ready to intervene.
WRT your point about how they could 'surpass' Tesla, two things:
Level 3 can be pretty restrictive - I'm not sure on specifics, but they could offer this on, say, only the ten largest interstates in Japan, and it would still qualify as level 3 self driving. The 'levels' aren't really a strict progression in capabilities. A level 2, 3, and 4 solution is really three separate problems to solve, not succesively better versions of the same system. It's conceivable to me that a legacy automaker could focus on getting this working on a few major interstates and have a system they're confident in after a few years, since they don't have to worry about nearly as many edge cases as a general highway ADAS solution.
Tesla's data/fleet advantage is overstated in their messaging. Most of the stuff presented in their autonomy day presentation doesn't actually exist (follow some Tesla reverse engineers for more info). Self-driving/ADAS is not, by and large, a data problem.
- gfodor 6y agoIt’s kind of funny if what you wrote is the full description that we are going to gauge the capability of a self driving system by how willing the manufacturer is to put themselves on the line, instead of data-driven analysis of the systems involved.
- jowday 6y agoThat's how this industry works, unfortunately. It's widely accepted that the disengagement stats companies are required to report to government agencies are essentially meaningless. There's no real standardization in how any of this stuff is reported. There's no way to do independent verifiable data driven analysis of the systems. Waymo's the only company that's put out a really robust deep dive into their safety stats - the white paper they out out was really pretty comprehensive.
- jimbokun 6y agoData can be faked and fudged. Legal liability tells you how confident the manufacturer really is in its technology.
- rodgerd 6y agoExactly. I don't care what your CEO tells me about being able to self-deliver in a couple of years. Show me what you'll be liable for.
- gfodor 6y agoIt’s true this leads to better incentives I just find it funny we frame this as “levels of autonomy” which sounds more like verified capabilities not implied capabilities via the confidence slash cajones of companies.
- durkie 6y ago> Self-driving/ADAS is not, by and large, a data problem. can you explain more?
- goshx 6y agoI can already use autopilot on a traffic jam without having to touch the wheel all the time. It seems to me the difference here is purely legal/regulatory and not the technology.