7 ms·

Waymo is currently the only SAE Level 4[0] self-driving car in use, right? The wheel must not be used. Even though it is limited to two cities. Their technolog

Waymo is currently the only SAE Level 4[0] self-driving car in use, right? The wheel must not be used. Even though it is limited to two cities. Their technology seems an order of magnitude above the rest, although factoring in its cost could make it look worse. (Can it turn a profit, when including the development costs?) Tesla FSD is at best SAE level 3 (can need human fallback), and at worst level 2 (needs constant human monitoring). [0]: https://blog.waymo.com/2020/10/revealing-our-approach-to-safety.html https://blog.waymo.com/2020/10/revealing-our-approach-to-saf...

tshaddox 5y ago
Those SAE levels apparently don’t specifically mention the geographic range the vehicle can operate in [0], but at some point that’s pretty important. Having “full automation” on a very tiny section of roads is hardly what I would call “orders of magnitude above the rest.” [0] edit: that's incorrect, L4 and L5 are primarily defined by differences in geography range.
- ericye16 5y ago
  The difference between SAE level 4 and 5 is explicitly whether the autonomy is geographically limited or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car#SAE_Classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car#SAE_Classific...
  - 0-_-0 5y ago
    Still, Level 3 can be more "advanced" than Level 4.
    - ra7 5y ago
      How? Level 3 requires a driver who needs to take over when alerted. Level 4 is fully driverless.
      - 0-_-0 5y ago
        No. It's fully driverless in geographically limited areas.
        ra7 5y ago
        I'm aware. It's really between "maybe works, maybe doesn't everywhere (L3)" vs "works with no driver in a defined area (L4)". I consider the latter as more advanced as they are taking full responsibility for your safety.
        tshaddox 5y ago
        It depends. If I could choose one car for person use, I'd take any modern adaptive cruise control + lane-keep assist system over an L4 that only worked in one city (even if it's a major city where I live). I'm not really sure how you determine which one is "more advanced," but I would consider the "level of automation" to be the portion of my normal driving habits that are able to be automated.
        ra7 5y ago
        You're talking about personal driving, which is a different use case than robotaxis. For that, yes, you're better served with an ADAS system. It will take a while for L4 systems like Waymo to trickle down to passenger cars.
        fastball 5y ago
        The point is that a "level 4 system" like Waymos is never going to trickle down to personally owned vehicles, because nobody wants to pay the hardware premium required for Waymo's autonomous system if it will be locked down to a specific city with specific routes. Which is exactly GC's point – they don't want a car that can drive itself in Phoenix and SF and that's it. Most people either want a car that can make their life easier for a huge portion of driving but still require them to be in the driver's seat (e.g. Tesla's Autopilot) or a car that can actually drive itself basically anywhere (e.g. Tesla's FSD). Waymo's Level 4 just isn't that appealing for a personal vehicle. This is why the SAE level system is poorly thought out and not particularly useful for anything except arguing over minutiae.
  - darkwater 5y ago
    Am I the only one seeing the change between l4 and l5 abysmal? Also L5 description, at least in the Wikipedia article, is much more vague than the rest
    - espadrine 5y ago
      In terms of convenience, it can be irrelevant. However, in terms of technology, level 5 is a big step up. Consider for instance that a level 4 system can assume that the ground is purely flat (an assumption that Tesla’s FSD vector space makes), while a level 5 system needs 3D information to navigate some vertically-diverse terrain.
    - jsight 5y ago
      There is a full document available on the SAE website with full descriptions and technical details. Its much better than the common summaries.
- crznp 5y ago
  Expanding the geographic range for Waymo is straightforward: do the same thing in a new place (plus new hurdles like snow, but that isn't currently the limitation to growth). It isn't clear how Tesla goes from "FSD" to "full automation". They are working on the "draw the rest of the owl" step.
  - fastball 5y ago
    I'd say the opposite. It is clear how Tesla goes from where they are to "full automation" – they just improve their models. Easier said than done, sure, but there is no conceptual leap required. Meanwhile, for Waymo to jump from level 4 to level 5 requires handling edge cases which it is actually not clear can be handled by the system Waymo has built. In huge swathes of the world, weather conditions are not conducive a system that relies heavily on LIDAR / roads change too much to be effectively mapped like they've done in very stable metropolitan areas like Phoenix and SF / etc. Said another way: our existing roads are built for entirely visual agents (humans). Getting a system that heavily relies on non-visual sensing (e.g. LIDAR/Radar) to work well on a specific subset of those roads is clearly doable, but that doesn't mean it can be generalized to our entire automobile infrastructure.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    At some point "doing the same thing in a new place" is not going to be economically possible, unless the company is somehow able to continue getting money to burn (or unless they get much much better at bringing new places online).
sjcoles 5y ago
FSD is still technically level 2. In Tesla's eyes and the law's eyes you are driving and in liable for what happens.
- nnadams 5y ago
  In the automotive industry we called this "level 2.999." I've moved on from automotive now, but in my experience nearly all of the new vehicle features in development, big or small, are developed at that level.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  It's also (and this is important for Tesla owners to keep in mind) not-italicized-technically level 2. As in, "This system is known to degrade in ways that require immediate human manual intervention under risk of serious injury or death. Do not operate it without constant driver supervision and preparation for takeover."
pbreit 5y ago
Most of the commercial value is achieved at Level 4. I'm curious what all the folks who claimed this was decades away are thinking?
- mchusma 5y ago
  I think almost no commercial value is at 4. I'm fact, it could be negative value. Because you need the expense of a "digital driver" and the expense of a human driver. It's basically level 5 or bust.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Level 4 (e.g. highways in good weather) is something that people buying cars will pay a significant amount for as an option in good weather. It does nothing for those who want robotaxis. But the former don't care about the latter. You have multiple groups of drivers including those who appreciate self-driving assistance on long boring highway stretches and may not even drive in cities that much and those who never want to get behind a wheel or perhaps ever own a car.
    - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
      Level 4 doesn't necessarily mean just highways - it could also easily include suburbs with well-designed roads that have been mapped in excruciating detail. You could force the car to avoid certain intersections with lots of close calls, or give the car advance info about unexpected objects detected in the road by cars up ahead, etc. which would make the task a little easier.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        A selection of highways in good weather is just one example that seems particularly easy (relatively speaking), well-defined, and genuinely useful.
  - pavon 5y ago
    Current California regulations for remote operators are identical regardless of whether the car is considered SAE level 4 or 5. I'm not sure what constitutes "continuous monitoring" there (I could interpret that as anything between eyes on road at all times down to positive SOH messages arrived). Apart from regulations, level 4 doesn't require a remote operator monitoring at all times. It just requires them to be available when the car recognizes it can't handle the situation. Depending on how frequently interventions are needed, that could mean a remote operator for every car, or one for every 10 thousand. The important part about Level 4 is that the car recognizes its own limits and doesn't act outside of them. How practical those limits are is completely undefined by SAE. Level 4 is a continuum whose limit is level 5. We will definitely be seeing practical commercial value as we approach level 5 but haven't yet gotten there.
fastball 5y ago
SAE levels are pretty garbage.

tshaddox 5y ago

Those SAE levels apparently don’t specifically mention the geographic range the vehicle can operate in [0], but at some point that’s pretty important. Having “full automation” on a very tiny section of roads is hardly what I would call “orders of magnitude above the rest.” [0] edit: that's incorrect, L4 and L5 are primarily defined by differences in geography range.

ericye16 5y ago
The difference between SAE level 4 and 5 is explicitly whether the autonomy is geographically limited or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car#SAE_Classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car#SAE_Classific...
- 0-_-0 5y ago
  Still, Level 3 can be more "advanced" than Level 4.
  - ra7 5y ago
    How? Level 3 requires a driver who needs to take over when alerted. Level 4 is fully driverless.
    - 0-_-0 5y ago
      No. It's fully driverless in geographically limited areas.
      - ra7 5y ago
        I'm aware. It's really between "maybe works, maybe doesn't everywhere (L3)" vs "works with no driver in a defined area (L4)". I consider the latter as more advanced as they are taking full responsibility for your safety.
        tshaddox 5y ago
        It depends. If I could choose one car for person use, I'd take any modern adaptive cruise control + lane-keep assist system over an L4 that only worked in one city (even if it's a major city where I live). I'm not really sure how you determine which one is "more advanced," but I would consider the "level of automation" to be the portion of my normal driving habits that are able to be automated.
        ra7 5y ago
        You're talking about personal driving, which is a different use case than robotaxis. For that, yes, you're better served with an ADAS system. It will take a while for L4 systems like Waymo to trickle down to passenger cars.
        fastball 5y ago
        The point is that a "level 4 system" like Waymos is never going to trickle down to personally owned vehicles, because nobody wants to pay the hardware premium required for Waymo's autonomous system if it will be locked down to a specific city with specific routes. Which is exactly GC's point – they don't want a car that can drive itself in Phoenix and SF and that's it. Most people either want a car that can make their life easier for a huge portion of driving but still require them to be in the driver's seat (e.g. Tesla's Autopilot) or a car that can actually drive itself basically anywhere (e.g. Tesla's FSD). Waymo's Level 4 just isn't that appealing for a personal vehicle. This is why the SAE level system is poorly thought out and not particularly useful for anything except arguing over minutiae.
- darkwater 5y ago
  Am I the only one seeing the change between l4 and l5 abysmal? Also L5 description, at least in the Wikipedia article, is much more vague than the rest
  - espadrine 5y ago
    In terms of convenience, it can be irrelevant. However, in terms of technology, level 5 is a big step up. Consider for instance that a level 4 system can assume that the ground is purely flat (an assumption that Tesla’s FSD vector space makes), while a level 5 system needs 3D information to navigate some vertically-diverse terrain.
  - jsight 5y ago
    There is a full document available on the SAE website with full descriptions and technical details. Its much better than the common summaries.
crznp 5y ago
Expanding the geographic range for Waymo is straightforward: do the same thing in a new place (plus new hurdles like snow, but that isn't currently the limitation to growth). It isn't clear how Tesla goes from "FSD" to "full automation". They are working on the "draw the rest of the owl" step.
- fastball 5y ago
  I'd say the opposite. It is clear how Tesla goes from where they are to "full automation" – they just improve their models. Easier said than done, sure, but there is no conceptual leap required. Meanwhile, for Waymo to jump from level 4 to level 5 requires handling edge cases which it is actually not clear can be handled by the system Waymo has built. In huge swathes of the world, weather conditions are not conducive a system that relies heavily on LIDAR / roads change too much to be effectively mapped like they've done in very stable metropolitan areas like Phoenix and SF / etc. Said another way: our existing roads are built for entirely visual agents (humans). Getting a system that heavily relies on non-visual sensing (e.g. LIDAR/Radar) to work well on a specific subset of those roads is clearly doable, but that doesn't mean it can be generalized to our entire automobile infrastructure.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  At some point "doing the same thing in a new place" is not going to be economically possible, unless the company is somehow able to continue getting money to burn (or unless they get much much better at bringing new places online).

sjcoles 5y ago

FSD is still technically level 2. In Tesla's eyes and the law's eyes you are driving and in liable for what happens.

nnadams 5y ago
In the automotive industry we called this "level 2.999." I've moved on from automotive now, but in my experience nearly all of the new vehicle features in development, big or small, are developed at that level.
shadowgovt 5y ago
It's also (and this is important for Tesla owners to keep in mind) not-italicized-technically level 2. As in, "This system is known to degrade in ways that require immediate human manual intervention under risk of serious injury or death. Do not operate it without constant driver supervision and preparation for takeover."

pbreit 5y ago

Most of the commercial value is achieved at Level 4. I'm curious what all the folks who claimed this was decades away are thinking?

mchusma 5y ago
I think almost no commercial value is at 4. I'm fact, it could be negative value. Because you need the expense of a "digital driver" and the expense of a human driver. It's basically level 5 or bust.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Level 4 (e.g. highways in good weather) is something that people buying cars will pay a significant amount for as an option in good weather. It does nothing for those who want robotaxis. But the former don't care about the latter. You have multiple groups of drivers including those who appreciate self-driving assistance on long boring highway stretches and may not even drive in cities that much and those who never want to get behind a wheel or perhaps ever own a car.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
    Level 4 doesn't necessarily mean just highways - it could also easily include suburbs with well-designed roads that have been mapped in excruciating detail. You could force the car to avoid certain intersections with lots of close calls, or give the car advance info about unexpected objects detected in the road by cars up ahead, etc. which would make the task a little easier.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      A selection of highways in good weather is just one example that seems particularly easy (relatively speaking), well-defined, and genuinely useful.
- pavon 5y ago
  Current California regulations for remote operators are identical regardless of whether the car is considered SAE level 4 or 5. I'm not sure what constitutes "continuous monitoring" there (I could interpret that as anything between eyes on road at all times down to positive SOH messages arrived). Apart from regulations, level 4 doesn't require a remote operator monitoring at all times. It just requires them to be available when the car recognizes it can't handle the situation. Depending on how frequently interventions are needed, that could mean a remote operator for every car, or one for every 10 thousand. The important part about Level 4 is that the car recognizes its own limits and doesn't act outside of them. How practical those limits are is completely undefined by SAE. Level 4 is a continuum whose limit is level 5. We will definitely be seeing practical commercial value as we approach level 5 but haven't yet gotten there.

fastball 5y ago

SAE levels are pretty garbage.