4 ms·

Boston will certainly be one of the boss levels for AI drivers to try and beat, but even then, there's massive value in them working for even 50% of the roads o

Boston will certainly be one of the boss levels for AI drivers to try and beat, but even then, there's massive value in them working for even 50% of the roads out there. If my robot car said "I can take you from Rhode Island to Maine, but you're on your own while we're in Suffolk County", it would still be very useful, or it could just avoid the tricky areas and take a longer trip while I sleep!

acdha 5y ago
The catch is how contiguous that 50% is: humans are terribly at switching contexts so it'd probably be okay if your car could be fine on, say, a long interstate trip but force you to handle the cities but it'd be a different story if you're zoning out on the highway but every couple miles there's some situation (road work, weather, other drivers, etc.) which it can't handle safely but you're distractedly looking up from Netflix.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  You seem to be conflating level 3 with level 4. A level 4 car would, by definition, never require you to take over while the vehicle is in motion. This level of automation operates safely with nobody in the driver's seat. A level 3 car requires a driver to pay full attention and "zoning out" would be unsafe behavior on behalf of the driver. Level 3 is considered by many to be dangerous given the human propensity to zone out despite being responsible.
  - acdha 5y ago
    If you read more carefully note that this is precisely why I drew that distinction: until you reach the point of level 4 everywhere under all conditions, you are going to have build systems which safely handle that challenge of inconsistent attention. Nobody is anywhere near that consistently high level of performance so there's an important question about how you can safely implement these systems — for example, a system which could be level 4 on a well-maintained road might be suitable for a driver-less transit system with a well-defined route even if the fire department are driving their own trucks for decades to come. One key question here is how you'd handle the cases where the system can't reliably perform at the top level. Consider the scenario I described earlier with a system which was level 4 in reasonable conditions: attempting to switch between full self-driving and human oversight frequently would be a safety hazard but you could probably safely release a system which is, say, L4 for long highway trips where a human driver could take a nap for an hour before having to take control to enter a complex city like Boston where the system would you to treat it as L3 or less for the entire trip during bad storm conditions or construction because it's safer to set the expected level of attention clearly at the beginning of the trip.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      > the point of level 4 everywhere under all conditions That isn't level 4, that is level 5. > you are going to have build systems which safely handle that challenge of inconsistent attention Level 4 is geofenced, but able to perform safely without any level of attention from any human driver. If a human is required to be in the driver's seat to take over on demand, then you are describing level 3, not level 4. > attempting to switch between full self-driving and human oversight frequently would be a safety hazard It shouldn't be. If a self-driving system can't safely reach a place to park in a region, with no human interaction, it is not level 4 in that region.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
thehappypm 5y ago
Most likely they’ll just make sure drivers are available for tricky pickups and drop offs.
andbberger 5y ago
people were saying that about SF a few years ago

acdha 5y ago

The catch is how contiguous that 50% is: humans are terribly at switching contexts so it'd probably be okay if your car could be fine on, say, a long interstate trip but force you to handle the cities but it'd be a different story if you're zoning out on the highway but every couple miles there's some situation (road work, weather, other drivers, etc.) which it can't handle safely but you're distractedly looking up from Netflix.

shkkmo 5y ago
You seem to be conflating level 3 with level 4. A level 4 car would, by definition, never require you to take over while the vehicle is in motion. This level of automation operates safely with nobody in the driver's seat. A level 3 car requires a driver to pay full attention and "zoning out" would be unsafe behavior on behalf of the driver. Level 3 is considered by many to be dangerous given the human propensity to zone out despite being responsible.
- acdha 5y ago
  If you read more carefully note that this is precisely why I drew that distinction: until you reach the point of level 4 everywhere under all conditions, you are going to have build systems which safely handle that challenge of inconsistent attention. Nobody is anywhere near that consistently high level of performance so there's an important question about how you can safely implement these systems — for example, a system which could be level 4 on a well-maintained road might be suitable for a driver-less transit system with a well-defined route even if the fire department are driving their own trucks for decades to come. One key question here is how you'd handle the cases where the system can't reliably perform at the top level. Consider the scenario I described earlier with a system which was level 4 in reasonable conditions: attempting to switch between full self-driving and human oversight frequently would be a safety hazard but you could probably safely release a system which is, say, L4 for long highway trips where a human driver could take a nap for an hour before having to take control to enter a complex city like Boston where the system would you to treat it as L3 or less for the entire trip during bad storm conditions or construction because it's safer to set the expected level of attention clearly at the beginning of the trip.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > the point of level 4 everywhere under all conditions That isn't level 4, that is level 5. > you are going to have build systems which safely handle that challenge of inconsistent attention Level 4 is geofenced, but able to perform safely without any level of attention from any human driver. If a human is required to be in the driver's seat to take over on demand, then you are describing level 3, not level 4. > attempting to switch between full self-driving and human oversight frequently would be a safety hazard It shouldn't be. If a self-driving system can't safely reach a place to park in a region, with no human interaction, it is not level 4 in that region.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

thehappypm 5y ago

Most likely they’ll just make sure drivers are available for tricky pickups and drop offs.

andbberger 5y ago

people were saying that about SF a few years ago