Get rid of Level 5!!!

[diplomat33]

Great video by an AV engineer on why we should get rid of Level 5. He argues that L5 does not make sense. L5 is redundant since L4 is already full autonomy. L4 does all the driving tasks without a human. Furthermore, people think L5 means "FSD everywhere with no limitations" but actually SAE does allow for legal and business limits on L5 ODD. So L5 could have the same ODD limits as L4, just the limits are for business reasons instead of technological reasons. For example, in theory, Waymo could say their geofenced robotaxis are L5 if they say the geofence is for business reasons and not technological reasons. But that renders L5 meaningless.

Personally, I agree 100%. L4 is full autonomy (no human driver). So just specify the ODD. If you know the ODD then you know where L4 can be used. We can let the ODD separate different L4 systems. And J3259 will be a standard that defines the ODD. So there is really no need for L5.

You can skip to 14:09 mark for the L5 discussion:

Chapters:

0:00 - My Car ♥
1:15 - My beef with Jono from Megalag
2:34 - "No, it's the globally recognised standard which is wrong!"
3:07 - The Heist
5:04 - #justiceforcruisecontrol
8:18 - Level 5 is kind of mid
14:09 - Let's get rid of Level 5
16:59 - Thank you for coming to my TED talk

 

[EVNow]

Get rid of stupid levels.

 

[diplomat33]

Get rid of stupid levels.

I would be ok with just 2 "levels: "with human driver" and "without a human driver". After all, the key is does the system require a human driver or not. And of course, add the ODD to give context of where and when the system can be used.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Great video by an AV engineer on why we should get rid of Level 5. He argues that L5 does not make sense. L5 is redundant since L4 is already full autonomy. L4 does all the driving tasks without a human. Furthermore, people think L5 means "FSD everywhere with no limitations" but actually SAE does allow for legal and business limits on L5 ODD. So L5 could have the same ODD limits as L4, just the limits are for business reasons instead of technological reasons. For example, in theory, Waymo could say their geofenced robotaxis are L5 if they say the geofence is for business reasons and not technological reasons. But that renders L5 meaningless.

Personally, I agree 100%. L4 is full autonomy (no human driver). So just specify the ODD. If you know the ODD then you know where L4 can be used. We can let the ODD separate different L4 systems. And J3259 will be a standard that defines the ODD. So there is really no need for L5.

You can skip to 14:09 mark for the L5 discussion:

Chapters:

0:00 - My Car ♥
1:15 - My beef with Jono from Megalag
2:34 - "No, it's the globally recognised standard which is wrong!"
3:07 - The Heist
5:04 - #justiceforcruisecontrol
8:18 - Level 5 is kind of mid
14:09 - Let's get rid of Level 5
16:59 - Thank you for coming to my TED talk

Level 5 to me implies that its ODD is "everywhere and in all conditions in which a competent human with a drivers license could drive the vehicle."
Might need to change the definition from the current one, but removing it is a cop-out.

Many people who live here would need L5 in order to sell their vehicles.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I would be ok with just 2 "levels: "with human driver" and "without a human driver". After all, the key is does the system require a human driver or not. And of course, add the ODD to give context of where and when the system can be used.

No, the key is whether I can sell my cars and use autonomous vehicles to get everywhere I want to go.

If I can't, they haven't reach L5.

 

[Chisale]

I don't have any problem with it. L4 means it can go on certain roads on in a certain area. L5 means it can go on all roads in all areas. Seems like a distinction worth keeping when you have a situation where part of the car's ability could be from road specific programming.

 

[diplomat33]

Level 5 to me implies that its ODD is "everywhere and in all conditions in which a competent human with a drivers license could drive the vehicle."
Might need to change the definition from the current one, but removing it is a cop-out.

I can see how removing L5 could be seen as a cop-out since you are just removing the problem rather than fixing it. The other option would be for the SAE to move the "legal and business ODD limits" over to L4. So, L5 could still be limited by country but all other legal or business limits would be L4. So that L4 is the level that is ODD limited (technological, legal, business). and L5 is the level with no ODD limits, other than country. That would make the definitions more consistent and fix the problem with L5 being able to have non-technological ODD limits. And it would make sense too since a legal or business ODD limit is still a limit placed on the autonomous driving. Consumers probably don't care if the limit is legal or technological, they just care if their car has a ODD limit and what that limit is.

Many people who live here would need L5 in order to sell their vehicles.

Under my solution, you could have L4 that essentially works everywhere. That's what Mobileye is doing. They plan for L4 on personal cars that will work essentially everywhere since they have mapped every road that their fleet has driven on. So it would still work for people. It just would be called "L4 wide" instead of "L5".

The fact is that AVs are unlikely to literally work everywhere with no limits at all, at least in the near future. AVs will likely have some ODD limits, even if they are very small. So what do you propose we do if a system works on say 99.9% of US roads? Do we say it is close enough and still call it L5 even though it is not actually 100% of roads? Where do we draw the line between L4 and close enough to be L5?

No, the key is whether I can sell my cars and use autonomous vehicles to get everywhere I want to go.

If I can't, they haven't reach L5.

You could have L4 that works everywhere you want to go. It does not need to be L5 to do that.

L5 means it can go on all roads in all areas.

Technically, yes. The problem is that the SAE put in that little disclaimer that manufacturers can put in legal or business ODD limits and still call it L5. So in theory, manufacturers could call their system L5 that does not work on all roads in all areas. That creates a problem with the definition. So like I said, we need to either get rid of the disclaimer so that L5 is truly "all roads, in all areas" or we need to get rid of L5 and just make "all roads, in all areas" a type of L4.

 

[Supcom]

The fact is that AVs are unlikely to literally work everywhere with no limits at all, at least in the near future. AVs will likely have some ODD limits, even if they are very small. So what do you propose we do if a system works on say 99.9% of US roads? Do we say it is close enough and still call it L5 even though it is not actually 100% of roads? Where do we draw the line between L4 and close enough to be L5?

You call it L4 with only 4170 miles of roads excluded. So long as you don't use those miles, you're good.

Most likely, the bigger restriction will be weather related rather than road exclusions. How much snow/ice on the roads is acceptable for L5 operation?

 

[Daniel in SD]

Get rid of stupid levels.

I would be ok with just 2 "levels: "with human driver" and "without a human driver". After all, the key is does the system require a human driver or not. And of course, add the ODD to give context of where and when the system can be used.

Need "with human driver on call"
But yeah the SAE should get rid of the level terminology, they confuse people.
Maybe just "driver assist" , "partially driverless", and "driverless"

 

[diplomat33]

Need "with human driver on call"
But yeah the SAE should get rid of the level terminology, they confuse people.
Maybe just "driver assist" , "partially driverless", and "driverless"

I am not sure that "with human driver on call" is really needed as a level. As Warren, from Waymo, explains below, remote operators don't take over the car, they just provide guidance to the AV. The AV still performs all the split second safety decisions on its own. So why would that need to be a distinct "level". Heck, you might not even be aware that the AV "phoned home".

https://twitter.com/x/status/1561574848400441344

 

[Daniel in SD]

I am not sure that "with human driver on call" is really needed as a level. As Warren, from Waymo, explains below, remote operators don't take over the car, they just provide guidance to the AV. The AV still performs all the split second safety decisions on its own. So why would that need to be a distinct "level". Heck, you might not even be aware that the AV "phoned home".

https://twitter.com/x/status/1561574848400441344

I'm talking about L3!
I was trying to avoid any mention of levels...
Waymo vehicles are driverless.

 

[diplomat33]

I'm talking about L3!
I was trying to avoid any mention of levels...
Waymo vehicles are driverless.

Sorry.

Yeah, I could see three "levels":

- Human driver with some autonomy (driver assist)
- Autonomy with human back-up
- Full autonomy (driverless)

 

[azred]

L5 discussion? Wake me if we get to L3.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Sorry.

Yeah, I could see three "levels":

- Human driver with some autonomy (driver assist)
- Autonomy with human back-up
- Full autonomy (driverless)

Autonomy is the wrong word. An automation system under constant supervision does not have autonomy.
I say stick with driver assist vs. driverless. That seems very easy to understand and explain to people. I think "partially driverless" can be understood as the car sometimes needing a driver, sometimes being able to drive on its own, and therefore requiring a driver to take over when notified. Though I admit that is still confusing to many people.

 

[diplomat33]

Autonomy is the wrong word. An automation system under constant supervision does not have autonomy.
I say stick with driver assist vs. driverless. That seems very easy to understand and explain to people. I think "partially driverless" can be understood as the car sometimes needing a driver, sometimes being able to drive on its own, and therefore requiring a driver to take over when notified. Though I admit that is still confusing to many people.

I should have said "human driver with some automation".

 

[ThomasD]

What happened to the plan that these companies would end car ownership

 

[ATPMSD]

SAE levels are just aspirations. No need to get rid of something that does not exist.

 

[diplomat33]

What happened to the plan that these companies would end car ownership

Nothing happened. AVs are in development. Some companies are deploying robotaxis now. Some believe that robotaxis will eventually end car ownership but we are long way from that happening. It would take millions of robotaxis everywhere, in every city, to maybe end car ownership. Also, not everybody wants to end car ownership. There are AV companies counting on car ownership. Mobileye is planning to sell L4 on personal cars. Even Waymo has talked about leasing robotaxis as personal cars.

I can see robotaxis maybe ending car ownership in big cities since big cities are not conducive to car ownership. In big cities, robotaxis may be more convenient and cheaper than car ownership. But IMO, robotaxis are unlikely to end all car ownership everywhere. There will always be some who will prefer car ownership, especially outside of cities. And there will be those who want to own an autonomous car instead of riding in a robotaxi.

 

[Daniel in SD]

What happened to the plan that these companies would end car ownership

Tesla Robotaxi is going to be shown at AI Day 2. Patience!

 

[JHCCAZ]

I should have said "human driver with some automation".

Like grandpa with a pacemaker?

Just kidding, but you might want to work on the phrasing a bit more....