hph6203 said:

---

No code gets deactivated going from a level 4 system to a level 2 system. That is not what delineates a level 4 system from a level 2 system. It is activating code that delineates a level 4 system from a level 2 system. That code is the driver monitoring system that requires the driver to pay attention and have the capacity to take over immediately from the autonomous drive system.

Quote:

---

There is nothing a level 4 system can do that a level 2 system can't other than have no driver in the seat.

---

Level 4: No driver monitoring (No person in the seat)
Level 3: Driver presence sensor activated (a person in the seat)
Level 2: Driver attention and presence sensor activated (i.e. an in-cabin camera that tracks the driver's eyes and/or a requirement to show their presence through touching/slightly turning the wheel, dependent upon on the manufacturer)

That's it. There are no other limitations to what the system can do. That doesn't mean every level 2 or 3 system can do everything a level 4 system can do, but there's nothing preventing it from doing everything a level 4 system can do other than the above-mentioned driver monitoring systems being activated for each level. That's why I say they don't have to develop or deploy a level 3 system because it provides no utility to the company and limited utility to the consumer while presenting increased litigation risk to the company.

When I say a level 2 system can have the same reliability as a level 4 system what I'm saying is that the driver in the seat can be superfluous to the operation of the vehicle, but still be required to be in the seat and ready to intervene if the system does not perform properly. Meaning that on a fleet-wide basis the system can have an average rate of human intervention every 1,000,000 miles at which point Tesla says to the regulators "Our system is operating at a level beyond human capacity, approve it for level 4 operation." While never building or deploying a level 3 system, because it is not necessary for their intended goal of removing drivers from vehicles, nor is it beneficial to them as a company to do that other than to drive adoption of their software/provide freedom to their customers that can be easily achieved by dialing down the rate of nag from their autonomous system as it improves.

---

You say a whole lot of words to show that you don't really understand how the levels of autonomy work...

And your first paragraph is pure gibberish. Do you even understand how coding a system like this works?

BTW...

Quote:

---

There is nothing a level 4 system can do that a level 2 system can't other than have no driver in the seat.

---

This is so wrong it's giving me tired head.

JFC...just...stop.

It's not just having a ****ing person in the seat that delineates the two - it's a LARGE amount of functionality.

hph6203 said:

---

I'm curious what functionality you believe is disabled in level 2 operation. There's nothing it can't do one time successfully. It's a matter of its consistency of accurately perceiving a scenario and what to do in it that necessitates its operation at level 2. It is not a limitation of control or even the potential of its understanding of circumstances, it just does not accurately recognize all circumstances all of the time.

Tesla FSD driving in San Francisco to SFO to drop someone off at the airport. In the entirety of the video the only input the driver makes is starting the software and at SFO to back up closer to the curb to let the passenger out, because the system does not yet have the ability to reverse enabled, but it has been said by their lead designer that it will be enabled within the next month. The rest of the controls were performed by the vehicle.

This is a 4x speed video. I would suggest muting as the guy who posts these videos has terrible taste in music, and increasing the speed to 2x. It'll take 5 minutes of your life and you'll maybe understand that it's not functionality that's enabled going from level 2 to level 4.



This is the same video at 1x speed without the music:



This is Tesla FSD being used on snowy roads in Wisconsin, human input is limited to starting/stopping the software each time it reaches its destination. There is no level 4 system available to the public in the U.S. that I'm aware of that operates in snow, they have done private testing, but no public availability:

---

Explain all the functionality necessary for a system to be qualified as Level 2.

Then explain all the functionality necessary for the system to be qualified as Level 4.

Not videos. Tell me EXACTLY what functionality you think the two systems need to have to meet their qualifications.

What do you think a Level 2 system can't do that a level 4 system can. Be specific.

A level 2 system minimally has to be able to adapt its speed to traffic and maintain its lane. It is a minimum spec, not a maximum spec. What delineates it from a level 3 or 4 spec is whether or not it meets the minimum spec of permitting the driver to remove attention from the road under certain circumstances (level 3) and removing the driver entirely (level 4).


You say functions must be shut off at level 2. What functions? Be specific. You don't need to be exhaustive. Just name 5, or 3, or 1.

hph6203 said:

---

What do you think a Level 2 system can't do that a level 4 system can. Be specific.

A level 2 system minimally has to be able to adapt its speed to traffic and maintain its lane. It is a minimum spec, not a maximum spec. What delineates it from a level 3 or 4 spec is whether or not it meets the minimum spec of permitting the driver to remove attention from the road under certain circumstances (level 3) and removing the driver entirely (level 4).


You say functions must be shut off at level 2. What functions? Be specific. You don't need to be exhaustive. Just name 5, or 3, or 1.

---

Wow...and you're going to continue to double down on not understanding...

You really don't understand what I meant about the functionality being there and not being activated, do you?

I asked you to explain what functionality that you think that each level needs to have...

If you understand how the functionality at each level works, it should be easy for you to explain it.

Here's a template for you...

Explain Level 2 functionality:

Explain Level 4 functionaily:

I don't know enough to jump into autonomous level but my Tesla just got the FSD learning update.

It is much better and getting very close. It drives much more human and how much better than the previous code based.

1. Drove up to speed bump. Car slowed down, went over bump, and accelerated past. Very human like
2. Drove and truck was parked on right side biker lane. Car veered close to yellow median then went back close to the biker lane. the car favors the right side instead of being smack in the middle which is what I do on the highway.
3. Turning is just way smoother and acceleration out of turn much more human like.

Is it as good as a human driver, no. Is it getting close yes. Would I trust it to take me around Austin right now, I think so.

Already did. I'm not the one arguing that it's functionality that differentiates a level 2 system from a level 4 beyond driver attentiveness and the minimum requirements that differentiate a level 2 system from a level 1 system. You are. I'm arguing that in the limit a level 2 system can perform all the functions of a level 4 system as long as a driver is in the seat paying attention to what it's doing. I argue that, because I've watched it do it over the course of several hundreds of hours of video of it in operation and cumulatively at least over 1,000 hours of discussions and explanations of how it functions, what it's current development is and what its development path is going forward.

I know what functionality Tesla's FSD system currently has. You seemingly don't. Maybe you do. Based upon comments you've made you seem to not know how it's being developed, because you seem to think there's lots of lines of code to enable/disable which is not the way it's being developed. Again, maybe you do know and just misspoke.

It is a much more streamlined resolution to the disagreement if you list a thing or things that you think are characteristic of a level 4 system that is excluded from a level 2 system other than the attention requirement of the driver and I'll tell you whether FSD does it and provide proof if it does. There is nothing a driver is required to do in terms of actions or scenarios that I can think of that the software lacks the capacity to do other than reverse and park (coming in the next 12.x update).

I think you have a deep misunderstanding of what Tesla's FSD software is and does. We will see if you're willing to test your assumptions. I'll remind you that you assumed a hands free system was necessarily level 3 and were corrected on that fact and the software you claimed that about was publicly available for over a year when you made the claim, which suggests you don't actually follow autonomous driving closely despite your expertise in autonomous aviation.

Wait, Xiden's EV's play plays right into the CCP's interests/hand? Where have I heard that strongly rebutted before (muh, your cell phone'):

Quote:

---

As we shift into a new mindset for the new year, now more than ever is the time for President Biden and his administration to reconsider its plans laid out for the future of electric vehicles (EVs). Since the beginning, the Biden administration has pushed unreasonable energy policies, corrupting our national security and hurting our economy, all while attempting to achieve its green agenda. Now to add fuel to the fire, the administration is now aiming to phase out traditional automobiles with EVs through federal regulation. These stringent policies put strain on our nation's infrastructure, limit consumer choice and leave our national security vulnerable, in turn, driving up prices and creating instability for Americans.

---

Quote:

---

On top of the issues that would arise on our national soil, the largest concern lies within the potential effects on our national security if the emissions rule were to be adopted. China has been a long-time investor of EVs, significantly growing their influence from over $605 million in 2016 to over $24 billion in 2022. A strategic move, China has successfully dominated the industry, forcing many countries who may be interested in EVs to fall to their knees, begging China to give them what they need.

To make matters worse, China also controls the majority of production and refining of the essential materials needed for EVs. In fact, China controls 21 percent of global lithium production and 41 percent of cobalt production. Not to mention, it is the largest producer of aluminum globally. All market factors considered, the U.S. does not stand a chance to independently develop and maintain production needed to foot the bill for the erroneous tailpipe emissions rule. The result of that equation equals more U.S. dependency on China a foreign communist adversary who should have no business being in a transactional relationship with our beloved nation.

It's why myself and 16 other national security voices delivered a letter to the President, urging him to greatly rethink his approach to climate change mitigation. We encouraged him to "consider the current state of play in the global marketplace and pursue domestic investment and infrastructure opportunities" before rushing into a policy that makes our nation dependent on a foreign adversary. Not to mention the blatant impact that will be felt by American households who will become wholly dependent on the cooperation of the Chinese.

As the administration attempts to expedite EV adoption in the U.S., it continuously fails to take into consideration the proposed rule's feasibility and the detrimental impacts on our national security. Since China has significant control over the materials and large investments into the technology needed for EVs, the administration's plan will lead to a dependency on the nation and jeopardize our ability to oversee our own transportation sector. In fact, twenty-five attorneys general have also brought this concern to the White House, citing the creation of a dependency on China as well as corrupting our energy independence as reasons the administration should not move forward with the rule.

---

I am sure Xi and Xiden appreciate the EVangelists' combined support.

The level designations are not detailed as to functionality.

Who gets to decide what is needed for no driver interaction? In what conditions and circumstatnces.

It would seem to be an "I'll know it when I see it" thing.


My Aviator has adaptive cruise control and lane centering. I guess that makes it "level 2" but it won't do what a Tesla does - it can't change lanes and doesn't know to stop at a red light or stop sign and can't turn corners (along with a billion other things I'd want a self driving car to be able to do).

Medaggie said:

---

Is it as good as a human driver, no. Is it getting close yes. Would I trust it to take me around Austin right now, I think so.

---

So, it can even dodge the meth heads!?

I think the Tesla owners/enthusiasts have been quite clear on this thread that the EV mandates are nothing more than union handouts and have always been so.

EVs are bad for union labor. They require less labor and it was a major contention of the strike. In order to appease the union the automakers added any battery plants they build to their union work. The union bail out was based upon the initial construction of the EV tax credit that had a provision for union labor of $4500 of a total credit of $12,000 that was nixed, because it was likely illegal. The EV credit in general was an attempted bail out of union manufacturing, but the restrictions on Chinese materials superseded that interest and has actually been a net negative impact to them, because Tesla is really the only manufacturer that has the supply chain necessary to qualify for the credit at any scale of production of consequence. That makes their significant cost advantage even more constricting on the other auto manufacturers, which is a big reason why they're delaying EV ramps. They released models, Tesla reduced prices to a point that is unachievable for those manufacturers and maximized their volume growth potential given their limited model lineup.

Despite techno's claims to the contrary, price increases have nothing to do with cost or profitability. You can buy a Model Y for a lower price today, and in April when they increase prices than at any point in the vehicle's history with an out-the-door price of as low as $42,000 (Taxes and fees included as well as the 7500 credit) for a Model Y AWD Long Range. The purpose of the price increase is inventory management directing consumers to their in-stock inventory page and maximizing Q1 deliveries, rather than configuring a new higher-priced Model Y that won't be delivered by the end of the quarter.

Angela Chao's toxicology report was released last night. She had a BAC of .23, so it turns out the shifter is not easily understood by a person that is likely either black-out drunk or near black-out drunk when they try to use it.

Quote:

---

EVs are bad for union labor. They require less labor and it was a major contention of the strike. In order to appease the union the automakers added any battery plants they build to their union work. The union bail out was based upon the initial construction of the EV tax credit that had a provision for union labor of $4500 of a total credit of $12,000 that was nixed, because it was likely illegal. The EV credit in general was an attempted bail out of union manufacturing, but the restrictions on Chinese materials superseded that interest and has actually been a net negative impact to them, because Tesla is really the only manufacturer that has the supply chain necessary to qualify for the credit at any scale of production of consequence. That makes their significant cost advantage even more constricting on the other auto manufacturers, which is a big reason why they're delaying EV ramps. They released models, Tesla reduced prices to a point that is unachievable for those manufacturers and maximized their volume growth potential given their limited model lineup.

---

I'm going to go ahead and type something I think I will likely regret; I agree with you. But, that is actually one off the very few fringe benefits of the BEV push; it will disempower the horrible, anti-American UAW. The auto industry needs to advance in automation beyond what it is and the UAW rules have held back American producers in particular, tremendously (though lousy management hasn't helped, very often).

As such, their decline is somewhat inevitable, even though I think it is sad it is likely to come to the benefit of the CCP outfits, and to the harm of the environment/laborers in strip mines throughout the southern hemisphere. There won't ever be enough subsidies/terms/hand outs/bail outs to keep GM/Ford/Chrysler 'whole' while working with the UAW, least of all their newest contracts.

One of the things Tesla gets very right is their automation push, including AI/teslabot, gigapresses, gigafactories etc. Anyway, enough of that talk, hopefully other players wind up adopting such technologies to make great ICE and hybrid vehicles in the future. But make no mistake, the commies are coming, and they will play the lower cost/price game aggressively.

"Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!"

Clearly the end times are near. I never thought I would see you two agree on anything.

To be clear I was parroting your terminology about "code being deactivated" not under the assumption that it's how it's developed. I'm not sure how knowledgeable you are about how their system is being developed, because you've previously asked questions that suggest you are totally unfamiliar with its development process and I have absolutely no idea what processes you follow to build your autonomous aviation systems, but I do know what Tesla is doing to build there's. So educate me on what function is dead on a level 2 system that would be live on a level 4 system. I ask, because I watch what it does right now and what it is allowed to do right now and any system that is turned off would be a hindrance, not a help to its safety. It drives on any road in this country, paved or not, and is responsible for reacting to any event that occurs on a road currently with the human operating as a monitor to ensure it does not fail. You seem to be under the impression that it is limited in the environments where it can be activated, that it is not expected to respond to all visual stimuli, maybe my impression is wrong and when you're saying dead functionality you mean something else.

You said:

Ag with Kids said:

---

I suppose they could have lots of Level 4 functionality built into it that can not and will not be able to be activated, but then it's STILL a Level 2 system. Lots of dead code in the autonomy system, though...

---

I think there's probably a lot more agreement, at least on basic facts, than you would think I just don't argue those particulars on this thread, because they're not wrong. The differences come in the present and future interpretations of how those present facts will shift over time.

EV fires as an example, it is an undeniable reality that an EV fire is much more energetic than a combustion vehicle fire. Currently, the majority of the fires related to EVs appear to be a result of collisions rather than random combustion events, but seemingly random combustion events do occur. He believes that the proportion of random combustion events will increase over time due to vehicle degradation/wear to the point they are as common or common enough relative to combustion vehicles that the fact that the fires are more energetic will make EV fires a cumulative effect much worse than ICE fires. I don't think that's likely, but it's not impossible. One of us is right.

We both agree that China is a major threat due to the adoption of EVs in the United States. We agree that efforts to force EV adoption is a bad thing. I think it's bad, because I think EVs long term are a better option and it causes never sentiment towards them, he thinks its bad because it accelerates Chinese influence. With respect to EV adoption I think that it's ultimately going to occur whether it's forced or not, because the cost reductions and adaptability of vehicle configurations, interoperability of components, and additional utility of an EV will ultimately win out over the fact they take longer to charge.

A theoretical example vehicle: $18,000. Size of a Corolla Hatchback, 45 kWh sodium ion battery pack reducing the battery pack cost by ~70% as compared to today's vehicles, range of around 180-190 miles, 0-60 in 7-8 seconds, but contains all of the technological bells and whistles of current EVs with cheaper interior materials/more plastic, with bi-directional charging that allows it to double as emergency battery back up for a home/potential load balancing for the grid for which the owner is paid for the energy time shift further reducing the ownership cost of the vehicle. Is that going to be the norm primary vehicle for a person or family? Probably not, but it looks like a pretty appealing car for a teenager's first car through college while the family generally gets benefits beyond the kid not nagging about needing a ride to go places and it seems like a perfectly capable commuter vehicle as a secondary vehicle while the primary vehicle has a more expensive and larger battery pack that isn't burned up through grid storage.

A person could say "That's not going to be possible." But a version of that vehicle is on sale in China right now with slightly lesser range and lesser performance, but at a price point of $9,500, throw another $9,000 at it and 4 years of cost downs of sodium ion batteries and you're probably there. So when people say we need to do something about Chinese EVs and their control over battery materials my response is you're damn right we need to, but I don't think pretending like they're going to lose because EVs suck is a winning strategy and we need to figure out how to build better and cheaper EVs so theirs don't become popular here.

hph6203 said:

---

Already did. I'm not the one arguing that it's functionality that differentiates a level 2 system from a level 4 beyond driver attentiveness and the minimum requirements that differentiate a level 2 system from a level 1 system. You are. I'm arguing that in the limit a level 2 system can perform all the functions of a level 4 system as long as a driver is in the seat paying attention to what it's doing. I argue that, because I've watched it do it over the course of several hundreds of hours of video of it in operation and cumulatively at least over 1,000 hours of discussions and explanations of how it functions, what it's current development is and what its development path is going forward.

I know what functionality Tesla's FSD system currently has. You seemingly don't. Maybe you do. Based upon comments you've made you seem to not know how it's being developed, because you seem to think there's lots of lines of code to enable/disable which is not the way it's being developed. Again, maybe you do know and just misspoke.

It is a much more streamlined resolution to the disagreement if you list a thing or things that you think are characteristic of a level 4 system that is excluded from a level 2 system other than the attention requirement of the driver and I'll tell you whether FSD does it and provide proof if it does. There is nothing a driver is required to do in terms of actions or scenarios that I can think of that the software lacks the capacity to do other than reverse and park (coming in the next 12.x update).

I think you have a deep misunderstanding of what Tesla's FSD software is and does. We will see if you're willing to test your assumptions. I'll remind you that you assumed a hands free system was necessarily level 3 and were corrected on that fact and the software you claimed that about was publicly available for over a year when you made the claim, which suggests you don't actually follow autonomous driving closely despite your expertise in autonomous aviation.

---

Wow...another wall of text to show that you really don't understand how autonomy standards work.

Bravo!!!

I'm glad you've watched several hundred hours of videos of people advertising for Tesla, though.

Is your degree in YouTube Watchology?

But, I do like that you are willing to die on the hill of your love of FSD (which I'm sure you think is some magical thing that no one else could ever do).

So....here...we...go...

Quote:

---

I'm arguing that in the limit a level 2 system can perform all the functions of a level 4 system as long as a driver is in the seat paying attention to what it's doing.

---

A Level 4 system does not need a driver to pay attention to what it's doing. A Level 4 system doesn't even need a person in the vehicle at all.

If a driver needs to be in the seat paying attention to what it's doing then...and I'll type this slowly...

IT...IS...NOT...PERFORMING...THE...FUNCTIONS...OF...A..LEVEL...4...SYSTEM.

A REQUIREMENT of a Level 4 system is that there is NO driver interaction at all. So you can't "perform all the functions of a level 4 system" if there is a driver that needs to be involved. NO DRIVER INVOLVED is one of the functions.

You're confusing "things the car can do" with "things the car requires human interaction for". The car could fly to Mars, but if it requires a driver to interact in any way, it would not be Level 4.

BTW...wtf is it with "in the limit"? Are we doing calculus to get from one Level to the next????

cecil77 said:

---

The level designations are not detailed as to functionality.

Who gets to decide what is needed for no driver interaction? In what conditions and circumstatnces.

It would seem to be an "I'll know it when I see it" thing.


My Aviator has adaptive cruise control and lane centering. I guess that makes it "level 2" but it won't do what a Tesla does - it can't change lanes and doesn't know to stop at a red light or stop sign and can't turn corners (along with a billion other things I'd want a self driving car to be able to do).

---

The "functionality" involves levels of human interaction. Not "what the car can do"

Fisker halts production.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/ev-startup-fisker-halts-production-to-raise-emergency-funds-amid-cash-crunch-from-low-demand

Consider this scenario. A level 2 autonomous driving system is deployed into all driving scenarios, surface streets, freeways, toll roads, dirt roads, this road, that road, your road, my road.

It starts by requiring human intervention once every 25 miles, because it cannot resolve the action it needs to take given the vision data it is receiving.

It is fed training data that progressively improves its capacity to drive without intervention and it progresses from 25 miles between interventions to 750,000 miles between interventions (~10 years of operation per autonomous vehicle),

It goes 2,500,000 miles between accidents

It goes 1,000,000,000 miles between an incident resulting in a death on a fleet-wide basis that improvement is "in the limit" in that it is still a level 2 system, because it still has a driver monitoring system and has not yet turned that system off, but it is an unreasonably over qualified level 2 system for that restriction because based upon highway data it is at minimum 10x better at avoiding accidents and death than the average human driver and far superior to level 4 systems in operation now. In other words, it approaches perfection, but will absolutely never make it there because that is not in the set of possible outcomes.

Basic question: You say that a level 2 system would necessarily have "dead code" (your words) and lack functionality that prevents it from being a level 4 system. Other than the driver monitoring system being active (that would go from being live to dead, your words) on this highly competent level 2 driving system where the driver being in the drivers seat is entirely superfluous to its function other than the system requires it and only has the driver monitoring system turned on in this hypothetical for illustration purposes that a level 2 system can be highly competent, what functions do you think it necessarily lacks that a level 4 system possesses?

hph6203 said:

---

To be clear I was parroting your terminology about "code being deactivated" not under the assumption that it's how it's developed. I'm not sure how knowledgeable you are about how their system is being developed, because you've previously asked questions that suggest you are totally unfamiliar with its development process and I have absolutely no idea what processes you follow to build your autonomous aviation systems, but I do know what Tesla is doing to build there's. So educate me on what function is dead on a level 2 system that would be live on a level 4 system. I ask, because I watch what it does right now and what it is allowed to do right now and any system that is turned off would be a hindrance, not a help to its safety. It drives on any road in this country, paved or not, and is responsible for reacting to any event that occurs on a road currently with the human operating as a monitor to ensure it does not fail. You seem to be under the impression that it is limited in the environments where it can be activated, that it is not expected to respond to all visual stimuli, maybe my impression is wrong and when you're saying dead functionality you mean something else.

You said:

Ag with Kids said:

---

I suppose they could have lots of Level 4 functionality built into it that can not and will not be able to be activated, but then it's STILL a Level 2 system. Lots of dead code in the autonomy system, though...

---

---

Ok...

So I have an understanding of exactly how to discuss this:

Quote:

---

I have absolutely no idea what processes you follow to build your autonomous aviation systems, but I do know what Tesla is doing to build there's

---

Explain your level of understanding on what Tesla is doing to build theirs. How do you KNOW what Tesla is doing to build theirs? Have you been involved in designing them? Architecting them? Coding them?

hph6203 said:

---

Consider this scenario. A level 2 autonomous driving system is deployed into all driving scenarios, surface streets, freeways, toll roads, dirt roads, this road, that road, your road, my road.

It starts by requiring human intervention once every 25 miles, because it cannot resolve the action it needs to take given the vision data it is receiving.

It is fed training data that progressively improves its capacity to drive without intervention and it progresses from 25 miles between interventions to 750,000 miles between interventions (~10 years of operation per autonomous vehicle),

It goes 2,500,000 miles between accidents

It goes 1,000,000,000 miles between an incident resulting in a death on a fleet-wide basis that improvement is "in the limit" in that it is still a level 2 system, because it still has a driver monitoring system and has not yet turned that system off, but it is an unreasonably over qualified level 2 system for that restriction because based upon highway data it is at minimum 10x better at avoiding accidents and death than the average human driver and far superior to level 4 systems in operation now. In other words, it approaches perfection, but will absolutely never make it there because that is not in the set of possible outcomes.

Basic question: You say that a level 2 system would necessarily have "dead code" (your words) and lack functionality that prevents it from being a level 4 system. Other than the driver monitoring system being active (that would go from being live to dead, your words) on this highly competent level 2 driving system where the driver being in the drivers seat is entirely superfluous to its function other than the system requires it and only has the driver monitoring system turned on in this hypothetical for illustration purposes that a level 2 system can be highly competent, what functions do you think it necessarily lacks that a level 4 system possesses?

---

a) Do you even know what dead code means?

b) If there is a driver that needs to interact with the system, it is NOT Level 4

c) I gave you the SAE Autonomy Level Chart. Did you look at it? Did you understand it?

d) "what functions do you think it necessarily lacks that a level 4 system possesses?". The function of not needing a driver to monitor the system.

e) This latest diatribe cements the fact that you don't understand what the levels of AUTONOMY are.

I thought this thread was about EVs.

rynning said:

---

I thought this thread was about EVs.

---

It is?

EV fires, China and techno's RSS feed.

They do public presentations of the process by which they build their autonomous system. They are hours-long explanations of the methodology they are using, how they gather their data, how they label their data, what the amalgamation of the video feeds see, how it builds the world around it etc. etc. The actually underlying codebase is not public, but the process by which they are doing it is on a top-level known.

As a point of clarification when I say capability of a level 4 system, I am not confused about a level 2 system requiring driver monitoring and a level 4 system not needing driver monitoring, I am using the levels as a stand-in for competence/accuracy in its decision making, because when it comes to an autonomous drive systems a highly competent level 2 system that does not actually need a driver monitoring (i.e. its error rate/frequency of human input is extremely low) would seek regulatory approval for level 4 operation because it represents a trillion dollar opportunity in the long term.

I know what dead code is

I am not confused about the levels of autonomy, you are using mixed language to make your statements. You have reverted to saying it needs "functionality" to be level 4 and have limited that to a singular "removes driver from the system." Where the initial impetus of this back and forth was you making the statement:

Ag with Kids said:

---

I suppose they could have lots of Level 4 functionality built into it that can not and will not be able to be activated

---

Which reads as a commentary of capability, i.e. things the car is permitted to do. Because the capacity to operate without a driver is not "lots" of functionality. It is a single piece of functionality based upon a lot of capability (i.e. things the car is permitted and successfully does). It is not "lots" but it is significant.

Which was in response to this line:

hph6203 said:

---

I'm not saying they definitively won't deploy a level 3 system, I'm saying it is not necessary for them to do so because they can demonstrate a system reliable enough to be deployed as a level 4 system while it operates as a level 2 system.

---

i.e. the time between interventions by the driver in the seat extends to the point where the driver does not actually interact with the system frequently enough that their presence is no longer necessary and the driver monitoring system can be disabled upon regulatory approval shifting the system from level 2 to level 4. No system is perfect. Waymo's system is in operation right now as a level 4 ride-hailing service in limited locations, but they still have a remote team of monitors that give clarifications to the system when it becomes confused.

This is my response to your statement:

hph6203 said:

---

No code gets deactivated going from a level 4 system to a level 2 system. That is not what delineates a level 4 system from a level 2 system. It is activating code that delineates a level 4 system from a level 2 system. That code is the driver monitoring system that requires the driver to pay attention and have the capacity to take over immediately from the autonomous drive system.

---

Do you still think I misunderstood the levels based on that statement? We'll clarify by "code" I mean functionality/capability.



So returning to this statement:

Ag with Kids said:

---

I suppose they could have lots of Level 4 functionality built into it that can not and will not be able to be activated

---

What did you mean by "lots of level 4 functionality"? Because what it reads like is "things the vehicle software is permitted to do", because you characterized it as "lots." It gives the impression that you believe Tesla's software is restricted to highways.


It appears based upon that comment you're under the impression that NHTSA, as the regulator, is imposing restrictions on level 2 operation that are not contained in the levels definition when you say that "lots" of functionality must be disabled. Maybe that's a misread.

Ag with kids said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

The level designations are not detailed as to functionality.

Who gets to decide what is needed for no driver interaction? In what conditions and circumstatnces.

It would seem to be an "I'll know it when I see it" thing.


My Aviator has adaptive cruise control and lane centering. I guess that makes it "level 2" but it won't do what a Tesla does - it can't change lanes and doesn't know to stop at a red light or stop sign and can't turn corners (along with a billion other things I'd want a self driving car to be able to do).

---

The "functionality" involves levels of human interaction. Not "what the car can do"

---

Huh? The level of human interaction is dictated by what the car can do without a human.

cecil77 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

The level designations are not detailed as to functionality.

Who gets to decide what is needed for no driver interaction? In what conditions and circumstatnces.

It would seem to be an "I'll know it when I see it" thing.


My Aviator has adaptive cruise control and lane centering. I guess that makes it "level 2" but it won't do what a Tesla does - it can't change lanes and doesn't know to stop at a red light or stop sign and can't turn corners (along with a billion other things I'd want a self driving car to be able to do).

---

The "functionality" involves levels of human interaction. Not "what the car can do"

---

Huh? The level of human interaction is dictated by what the car can do without a human.

---

And government regulators.

And conservatives that also found themselves suddenly members of the sierra club and green peace

I&I editorial; grid-draining electron guzzlers and the end of driving

Quote:

---

There are a number of problems with the march to EV-topia. They're not zero-emission vehicles, they're an extravagant purchase, costly to repair, expensive to insure, hazardous to own, and they create a new class of hazmat problems.

On top of all that, charging them is a hassle, which is only going to become worse. America, in 2024, is already running out of power.

"Vast swaths of the United States are at risk of running short of power as electricity-hungry data centers and clean-technology factories proliferate around the country, leaving utilities and regulators grasping for credible plans to expand the nation's creaking power grid," the Washington Post reported earlier this month.

This "power crunch imperils" utilities' capacity to provide the massive amount of electricity "needed to charge the millions of electric cars and household appliances required to meet state and federal climate goals."

As the grid coughs, wheezes and sputters, as construction of solar and wind farms can't keep up with the retirements of natural gas and nuclear plants, politicians such as Joe Biden and a small mob of governors that includes Gavin Newsom, California's one-man demolition crew, are busy outlawing automobiles that run independent of the power supply (outside of the electricity needed to run gas pumps).

But that's OK because Americans will be buying EVs, and when they can't be charged because the demand for power outstrips the supply, we will hop on buses, trains and subways exactly where those politicians and planners want us. Our self-appointed superiors even admit they wish to "help get people out of their cars," and lead a shift from "ownership to usership" of vehicles.

In their way of thinking, only the elites should have the freedom that automobiles deliver. Everyone else must be sardined into mass transit. The EV fetish is nothing but a navigation point on the left's route to a world in which a car is a luxury item that only few will have.

---

About right. Not for me!

Automakers are losing $6K per BEV sold;

Quote:

---

A new study is claiming that automakers lose an average of $6,000 for every $50,000 electric vehicle they sell. Boston Consulting Group, an American-based global management consulting firm that issued the report, said the figure accounts for customer tax credits painting a rather bleak picture for the future of EVs.

However, this was attributed largely to the fact that automakers had spent so much upfront developing electrification. Assuming production continues and the public ends up buying them in meaningful numbers, EV profitability should improve over time. Of course, we've been hearing that for well over a decade at this point.

While segment growth has improved, it's not happening at the pace industry leaders expected. Five years ago, automakers assumed electric vehicles would reach parity with combustion vehicles by roughly 2025. But none of the major markets are on pace to hit those targets.

Meanwhile, the industry projected a 70 percent EV sales growth for 2023 based on the sales growth witnessed during the pandemic. The reality is that the number was closer to 50 percent and has continued to weaken. Fresh EV registrations rose just 15 percent in January, according to data from S&P Global Mobility.

"This obviously caused a lot of consternation among our OEM clients who are pumping billions of dollars into these next-generation vehicles," Andrew Loh, a senior partner for Boston Consulting Group, told Automotive News in an interview.

Profitability is the other big issue, with Loh suggesting that something will need to change if the industry cannot figure out how to make the next generation of all-electric vehicles consistently profitable.

From Automotive News:

Quote:

---

Whether automakers have the "stomach" to keep investing "until they get to the level of scale and efficiency where they can actually turn a profit" is a question, Loh said.

---

Quote:

---

Automakers differ in their approaches to EVs, but most have felt the punch of slowing sales growth. Toyota, for example, will buy credits to meet emissions regulations, choosing to base its EV plans on customer demand.

---

Quote:

---

Ford, which less than two years ago said it wanted to eventually challenge Tesla in EV sales, has cut production of its electric F-150 Lightning pickup and halted shipments for an undisclosed issue.

---

Quote:

---

Nearly 40 percent of 3,000 U.S. consumers surveyed by Boston Consulting Group in January said they intend to purchase an EV as their next vehicle. But they expressed strict requirements to make the jump.

---

Quote:

---

EV intenders want 20-minute charging times, a 350-mile driving range and a price of $50,000, according to the group's report on the survey.

---

That's a lot to ask from today's market, with the research team suggesting that the Hyundai Ioniq 6 is the only EV capable of even coming close to hitting those metrics. Tesla's Model3 was runner up.

---

Devastating.

So are you also opposing new data centers, manufacturing and housing which are a vastly higher amount of the electricity demand growth in this country than EVs? Total electricity used by EVs is a fraction of 1% of total grid demand.

As the chart shows, we have added a lot of total capacity in the US since 2000 while peak demand has barely changed until the last couple years. The retirements are plants that are generally 40+ years old that can't compete with the thermal efficiency and cost of natural gas of modern gas fired plants. Coal is dying in this country as an energy source because natural gas is cheaper on a $/btu basis and the operating costs are lower. I think shutting nukes is a mistake but the bigger issue with those is they are aging and we need to build modern, small scale reactors.

This concern about the electric grid collapsing is like civil engineers saying our infrastructure is collapsing for the last 30+ years with a D minus grade and environmentalists saying the world is ending due to GHG. All of this Chicken Little act by various groups is getting old.

Kansas Kid said:

---

So are you also opposing new data centers, manufacturing and housing which are a vastly higher amount of the electricity demand growth in this country than EVs? Total electricity used by EVs is a fraction of 1% of total grid demand.

---

I think right now EV's are still less than 3 percent of vehicles registered in Texas. HTH.

And yet people try to blame grid strains on EVs even today. Even if all cars were EVs, most estimates are they would be around 30% of total demand today. With the growth of electricity for other uses, it would be way less than that and we would have decades to add capacity and update the grid to get to a world of 100% EVs which isn't likely happening as you like to regularly point out. .

I wonder....is anyone working on small-scale, "personal" nuke reactors? That would be cool. That would throw all the power issues out the window.

Serious question.

I haven't heard of it and I seriously doubt it would be doable because the energy generated from even a very small amount of nuclear would dwarf an individual families needs.

PS, it would be cool if we all could have our own Mr Fusion.