powertoold
Active Member
No, this is wrong. And yes, I am condescending, lol
You guys need to go and read the entire document word by word instead of cherry picking lines.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Autonomous Car Progress
- Thread starter stopcrazypp
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Autonomous Vehicles
No, this is wrong. And yes, I am condescending, lol
You guys need to go and read the entire document word by word instead of cherry picking lines.
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
I did read the entire J3016 document word for word.
Last edited:
powertoold
Active Member
Ok, I hope some other people who have read it word for word can let you know that an AV driving feature that is designed to require driver supervision can never be level 5.
I'm out of this discussion again. From time to time, I like to gauge if there's been any progress in understanding the levels.
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
Obviously, a system designed to require driver supervision can never be L5. But that is not what we were talking about. You mentioned adding a line of code that adds driver nags to an already L5 system. That is very different from a system designed from the start to require driver supervision.
powertoold
Active Member
Is this comedy? Do you even know what you're saying? lol
Requiring driver supervision through nags (like Tesla's nag system) makes a system no longer level 5, it now becomes a level 2. How much more obvious can we get here?
For Tesla to remove the nags, they likely can toggle it off or change one line of code.
Please........ go back and read the entire J3016:
SAE’s levels of driving automation are descriptive and informative, rather than normative, and technical rather than legal. Elements indicate minimum rather than maximum capabilities for each level. In this table, “system” refers to the driving automation system or ADS, as appropriate.
PLAIN ENGLISH: level 2 can have all the capabilities of level 5, but if it requires driver supervision, it's still level 2! Hi! Hello! Howdy!
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
So I guess you feel this definition of L2 is just a minimum and L2 could do everything L5 does but require driver supervision?
That does not make sense since the note clearly says that L2 is capable of only limited OEDR. If the L2 could do the entire OEDR then it can't be L2.
And here is the definition of L5:
Does that sound like L2 and L5 have the same capabilities to you? One is limited and requires a human to complete some driving tasks, the other can complete entire driving tasks and does not require any human intervention. They are very different. L2 is not "L5 with driver supervision" as you seem to think. L2 fundamentally lacks some driving tasks of L5.
I think your mistake is that you are only looking at the driver supervision part. Yes, L2 requires driver supervision, L5 does not. But that is not the only difference between the two levels. L2 has limited DDT and no DDT fallback while L5 can do entire DDT and DDT-fallback. That is another key difference between the two. So you can't just say if a system requires driver supervision it is automatically L2. That is simplistic. Again, you can have L4/L5 with safety drivers (as you admit). So you can't just look at driver supervision as the only thing that makes something L2.
And there is a big difference between a system that is designed to require driver supervision because it can't do some driving tasks and a system that only has driver supervision because of testing and validation but is designed not to require driver supervision.
Last edited:
powertoold
Active Member
Did you miss the direct quote from the definition I posted above regarding minimum vs maximum capabilities of any level?
I don't get why this is so difficult.
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
No, I did not miss it. Did you not read my post? I addressed that exact point here:
I specifically asked you if you interpreted the "minimum" part as meaning L2 can do everything L5 can but with driver supervision?
And no, I am not ignoring the "minimum" caveat in the SAE document. In fact that is precisely why systems like FSD Beta that do a lot more than basic lane keeping and adaptive cruise control are still L2. Because the definition allows for L2 to have more "features" than just lateral and longitudinal control in the basic definition. But that does not mean L2 can have the same capabilities as L5. The Note for L2 is very clear that L2 cannot do the entire OEDR. So if the system can do the entire OEDR like L5 then it cannot be L2. So yes, L2 can do more than just basic lane keeping and adaptive cruise control but only up to a point. L2 cannot have the same capabilities as L5.
Last edited:
powertoold
Active Member
That's why I'm telling people to read the whole document word by word, because you'll understand the generalized purpose of the levels. It seems you don't understand the big picture.
My quote talks in a GENERAL way about the entire definition:
SAE’s levels of driving automation are descriptive and informative, rather than normative, and technical rather than legal. Elements indicate minimum rather than maximum capabilities for each level. In this table, “system” refers to the driving automation system or ADS, as appropriate.
Your quote about the "only limited OEDR" doesn't contradict my quote. At minimum, the level 2 can only complete a limited OEDR. This means, at minimum, a level 2 must complete SOME OEDR (like lane detection), not complete, but there is no maximum defined.
Last edited:
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
I am reading entire document. That is why i look at all the definitions, all the notes etc... you only look at that one quote that you can spin to support your interpretation. You need to look at entire document.
Yes it does contradict your view because you said L2 has same capability as L5. That is impossible since L2 can only complete some OEDR but not all.
Yes there is a maximum defined. L2 cannot do 100% OEDR. So L2 can never have same capabilities as L4/L5.
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
From an actual AV engineer, driver nags or driver monitoring have nothing to do with the SAE levels. They relate to safety.
In terms of driver supervision, the main difference between L2 and L4/L5 is that L2 will always require driver supervision. Even if L2 were 100% reliable, it would still require a human driver because it cannot do the entire OEDR. On the other hand, L4/L5 will require driver supervision in the beginning when reliability is low, but can eventually drop driver supervision when reliability becomes good enough. That's because L4/L5 can do the entire OEDR. So when it does it well enough, it can be trusted to drive without driver supervision.
In terms of driver supervision, the main difference between L2 and L4/L5 is that L2 will always require driver supervision. Even if L2 were 100% reliable, it would still require a human driver because it cannot do the entire OEDR. On the other hand, L4/L5 will require driver supervision in the beginning when reliability is low, but can eventually drop driver supervision when reliability becomes good enough. That's because L4/L5 can do the entire OEDR. So when it does it well enough, it can be trusted to drive without driver supervision.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Oh boy, another discussion of SAE levels!
FSD Beta is a Level 5 system. It just requires a safety driver because Tesla doesn't think it's safe enough yet to use without monitoring.
Hopefully that clears everything up.
FSD Beta is a Level 5 system. It just requires a safety driver because Tesla doesn't think it's safe enough yet to use without monitoring.
Hopefully that clears everything up.
powertoold
Active Member
The levels are straight up stupid if so many people don't even understand them, lol.
Nags = expectation that the driver supervise = not level 5. It's like 2+2
Nags = expectation that the driver supervise = not level 5. It's like 2+2
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Every AV company has nags for obvious reasons (clue: Uber).
What would a safety driver be in the vehicle for other than to supervise?
Eh, just assume that people mean a deployed driverless L4 system when they say L4. Not that hard.
The key correspondence comes from December 28, 2020, between Tesla’s associate general counsel Eric C. Williams and California DMV’s chief of the autonomous vehicles branch, Miguel D. Acosta. A letter details the capabilities of both Autopilot and FSD: “Currently neither Autopilot nor FSD Capability is an autonomous system, and currently no comprising feature, whether singularly or collectively, is autonomous or makes our vehicles autonomous,” Williams states.
Williams continues in his letter to the California DMV, “As you know, Autopilot is an optional suite of driver-assistance features that are representative of SAE Level 2 automation (SAE L2). Features that comprise Autopilot are traffic-aware cruise control and autosteer. Full Self-Driving (FSD) capability is an additional optional suite of features that builds from Autopilot and is also representative of SAE L2.”
Williams continues in his letter to the California DMV, “As you know, Autopilot is an optional suite of driver-assistance features that are representative of SAE Level 2 automation (SAE L2). Features that comprise Autopilot are traffic-aware cruise control and autosteer. Full Self-Driving (FSD) capability is an additional optional suite of features that builds from Autopilot and is also representative of SAE L2.”
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
Yeah, I think in practice, what matters is actual public deployment. So while L4 that is in development will likely have a safety driver what people care about is a deployed driverless L4 vehicle.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
I know that's what they told the DMV. Elon, the person who is actually running the project, says the goal is to have FSD not require a driver next year (which as @powertoold correctly points out can only be done by L4+ system). Also even if Elon said that was not the intent, I trust my own eyes more than I trust Elon. Perhaps with Neuralink we will be able to read his true intent but until then I will use my judgement.
You and I aren't driving on the same FSD Beta. I've been commuting just about every workday on FSD Beta since last November (10.5) and while FSD Beta frequently yells at me to take control immediately, I have never seen it perform a maneuver that even remotely hints at it having a fallback function. As far as I can tell, if I wasn't present and ready to take control immediately, it would crash. So if we are "trusting our own eyes," then Tesla's autonomous driving "feature" is L3 "capability" at best. The only source one could possibly have for thinking that FSD Beta is or will be L4 capable is what Elon says, and, again, Elon has consistently been an extremely unreliable source of FSD capabilities and timelines.
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
Interesting article. Following the news of Argo shutting down, he looks at what automakers, who are disillusioned with robotaxis, might do. He argues automakers will double down on L2+/L3 systems. He is concerned about a "race to the bottom" where automakers will race to be the first to release a shiny, cool L2+/L3 system at the expense of safety.
He suggests several options:
ojoyoshidareport.com
He suggests several options:
Tech Roadmap for Automakers Disillusioned With Robotaxis | The Ojo-Yoshida Report
OEMs will likely double down on their Level 2 → 2+ → 3 strategies. But there is a very real risk of a race to the bottom since each option comes with challenges.
ojoyoshidareport.com
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Article
