undefined | Better HN

0 pointscmarschner8y ago0 comments

Summary:

- level 2: "hands off"

- level 3: "eyes off"

- level 4: "mind off"

0 comments

I remember reading recently that we should probably be avoiding level 3 in production altogether (and possibly even level 2), since the general populace doesn't have the capacity for responding quickly to failures in automatic guidance systems; unlike perhaps aircraft pilots who are intimately aware of the limitations of the systems.

johansch8y ago

https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/27/11518826/volvo-tesla-auto...

"Victor says that Volvo believes that Level 3 autonomy, where the driver needs to be ready to take over at a moment's notice, is an unsafe solution. Because the driver is theoretically freed up to work on email or watch a video while the car drives itself, the company believes it is unrealistic to expect the driver to be ready to take over at a moment's notice and still have the car operate itself safely.

phs318u8y ago

Absolutely agree, and not just because of the reaction time, but the lack of context in the human that has been reading their emails/whatever. The first thing the human will try and do is instinctively look up and around to assess the nature of the threat. That takes time. For mine, I can't see the insurance industry being too happy with anything between L1 and L4 being on the roads in serious numbers.

skgoa8y ago

But that argument ignores that these systems help stop accidents from happening 99% of the time and focuses only on the 1% when they fail. (numbers are made up) Automation has lead to accidents in aviation as well. But it's still being pushed forward, because when looking at total miles traveled, more automation tends to be significantly safer. The same principle holds true for ground vehicles.

CamperBob28y ago

Driving is infinitely harder than flying, from the perspective of a truly autonomous system. Once at altitude, there isn't much to run into. There are also very few possible emergencies that demand the pilot's attention within the next few seconds. Midair collisions are about the only exception I can think of, and there are already automated systems in place to prevent those. Bird strikes might be another, but those don't tend to coincide with periods of autopilot usage.

For a motor vehicle, though, the idea that "eyes off" and "mind off" should exist as separate levels of autonomy is just nuts. "Eyes off" will absolutely be interpreted as "mind off" by the majority of real-world drivers. It doesn't make sense to offer an "eyes off" solution at all, IMHO. Wait until we can genuinely call it a "mind off" solution.

2 more replies

maxerickson8y ago

Sure, the question is whether building the interface for the systems as level 2 or level 3 is the safer choice.

A level 2 system can still do all the same interventions as a level 3 system, it just doesn't have the further relaxed state for the driver.

mannykannot8y ago

As 100% reliability is unattainable in practice, I would assume this has already been taken into account in defining the levels - which leaves the question hanging: while, in principle, there may be a distinction between "hands off", "eyes off" and "mind off", will there be a distinction in practice? Volvo (and Ford?) seem to think not.

And is there any "hands off" system that tests if the driver is "eyes on"? With eye-tracking, it is feasible, but I have not read of it being used.

t0mbstone8y ago

The reality is that planes can be automated completely. The only reason they aren't is because of public perception, and the fact that if there's a bug and it crashes, 300 people die all at once.

If one or two automated cars crash due to glitches, however, the risk is perceived as being a lot smaller because those individual incidents would theoretically affect fewer people. Also, car automation would end up saving more lives overall in the grand scheme, and would also solve a lot of traffic problems in the long run.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse