4 ms·

> Also, just a reminder that Waymo in Phoenix is nowhere close to being level 5 Because they are not even trying to be level 5. They've made it very clear that

by ra7 5y ago

> Also, just a reminder that Waymo in Phoenix is nowhere close to being level 5 Because they are not even trying to be level 5. They've made it very clear that will only ever be a level 4 company and level 5 is not feasible.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Level 5 isn't feasible as much for legal reasons as technical ones. I don't think any company wants to sign off on the notion that their software will handle all classes of problem, even ones they have no data for at all.
- ra7 5y ago
  Except Tesla, who are going to be "L5 by the end of the year" every year!
  - Bukhmanizer 5y ago
    I’m pretty sure Tesla’s whole strategy is to overpromise so much it’s as much a legal liability to not have L5 than to have L5.
    - minsc__and__boo 5y ago
      Tesla brand sells a lifestyle at this point, not just a vehicle. They have to keep pumping it.
- espadrine 5y ago
  > Level 5 isn't feasible as much for legal reasons as technical ones. That point is taken into account under J3016_202104 § 8.8: “There are technical and practical considerations that mitigate the literal meaning of the stipulation that a Level 5 ADS must be capable of ‘operating the vehicle on-road anywhere that a typically skilled human driver can reasonably operate a conventional vehicle,’ which might otherwise be impossible to achieve. For example, an ADS-equipped vehicle that is capable of operating a vehicle on all roads throughout the US, but, for legal or business reasons, cannot operate the vehicle across the borders in Canada or Mexico can still be considered Level 5, even if geo-fenced to operate only within the U.S.”.
dheera 5y ago
Anyone who says L5 is bullshitting honestly. L4 is enough to be viable and safe, and is all that is needed. In fact this level crap is bullshit. It's the speak of MBAs at Bain and McKinsey at who think they understand tech, not engineers. Real engineers don't stare at their debugging screens going "check out this data, is it L3 or L4?" Instead engineers look at things like safety-critical interventions per kilometer, non-critical interventions per kilometer, accidents per kilometer, etc.
- mbesto 5y ago
  > In fact this level crap is bullshit. It's the speak of MBAs at Bain and McKinsey at who think they understand tech, not engineers. So how do you explain, succinctly, the difference between a car that can hold 55 mph (but do nothing else automatically) without driver intervention and one that can change from 25 mph to 55 mph and change lanes without driver intervention. The differences between levels are drastic in terms of implications on overall utility of the technology. There's a reason the terms are used. > L4 is enough to be viable and safe, and is all that is needed. Needed for what exactly? Each level has its own benefits. That's exactly the reason the levels were established. I want to be able to get into a car, put in an address and fall asleep for the whole trip. When do I get that? L4? L5? If I can't do other tasks while the car is driving, then the point of full autonomous is essentially pointless. > not engineers. Precisely. The levels have nothing to do with engineers. It's about understand the benefits for the population. For example - can I fall asleep in the back of the Tesla autonomous car? No, because it's not L5. That's the point.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    > When do I get that? L4? L5? It doesn't really matter so long as there are fallback drivers in all situations. An lower level autonomy car would remotely connect to the backup driver (in a third world call center) several times per hour in order to behave like a higher level one. A higher level one would connect more rarely. The only difference I notice as a customer is I pay more out of the box for the higher level car and less as a subscription , while the lower level car costs less out of the box and has a higher subscription fee because the human costs are higher.

by ra7 5y ago

shadowgovt 5y ago

Level 5 isn't feasible as much for legal reasons as technical ones. I don't think any company wants to sign off on the notion that their software will handle all classes of problem, even ones they have no data for at all.

ra7 5y ago
Except Tesla, who are going to be "L5 by the end of the year" every year!
- Bukhmanizer 5y ago
  I’m pretty sure Tesla’s whole strategy is to overpromise so much it’s as much a legal liability to not have L5 than to have L5.
  - minsc__and__boo 5y ago
    Tesla brand sells a lifestyle at this point, not just a vehicle. They have to keep pumping it.
espadrine 5y ago
> Level 5 isn't feasible as much for legal reasons as technical ones. That point is taken into account under J3016_202104 § 8.8: “There are technical and practical considerations that mitigate the literal meaning of the stipulation that a Level 5 ADS must be capable of ‘operating the vehicle on-road anywhere that a typically skilled human driver can reasonably operate a conventional vehicle,’ which might otherwise be impossible to achieve. For example, an ADS-equipped vehicle that is capable of operating a vehicle on all roads throughout the US, but, for legal or business reasons, cannot operate the vehicle across the borders in Canada or Mexico can still be considered Level 5, even if geo-fenced to operate only within the U.S.”.

dheera 5y ago

Anyone who says L5 is bullshitting honestly. L4 is enough to be viable and safe, and is all that is needed. In fact this level crap is bullshit. It's the speak of MBAs at Bain and McKinsey at who think they understand tech, not engineers. Real engineers don't stare at their debugging screens going "check out this data, is it L3 or L4?" Instead engineers look at things like safety-critical interventions per kilometer, non-critical interventions per kilometer, accidents per kilometer, etc.

mbesto 5y ago
> In fact this level crap is bullshit. It's the speak of MBAs at Bain and McKinsey at who think they understand tech, not engineers. So how do you explain, succinctly, the difference between a car that can hold 55 mph (but do nothing else automatically) without driver intervention and one that can change from 25 mph to 55 mph and change lanes without driver intervention. The differences between levels are drastic in terms of implications on overall utility of the technology. There's a reason the terms are used. > L4 is enough to be viable and safe, and is all that is needed. Needed for what exactly? Each level has its own benefits. That's exactly the reason the levels were established. I want to be able to get into a car, put in an address and fall asleep for the whole trip. When do I get that? L4? L5? If I can't do other tasks while the car is driving, then the point of full autonomous is essentially pointless. > not engineers. Precisely. The levels have nothing to do with engineers. It's about understand the benefits for the population. For example - can I fall asleep in the back of the Tesla autonomous car? No, because it's not L5. That's the point.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  > When do I get that? L4? L5? It doesn't really matter so long as there are fallback drivers in all situations. An lower level autonomy car would remotely connect to the backup driver (in a third world call center) several times per hour in order to behave like a higher level one. A higher level one would connect more rarely. The only difference I notice as a customer is I pay more out of the box for the higher level car and less as a subscription , while the lower level car costs less out of the box and has a higher subscription fee because the human costs are higher.