I look at level 2 through level 4 as a spectrum of how much warning a driver gets before they have to take over.
Level 2 is 0 seconds; the driver has to watch constantly.
Level 4 is indefinite, or alternatively we could say "minutes". The car can pull over if necessary.
For this particular level 3 system, it's 10 seconds. That seems pretty reasonable for level 3.
And as you said, the ODD of levels 3 and 4 is entirely up to the manufacturer. Only level 5 has a domain by definition, which is matching human ability.
Even your Level 5 domain is dubious as I've written before. Jim would drive in a blizzard, some Level 5 car refuses to drive in a blizzard. Is the car faulty by this definition or is Jim a lunatic ? I think it's probably Jim.
I think Level 4 is clearer because it's closer to public transit. Somebody else (the machine) is driving, so if I'm day dreaming, or indeed asleep, nothing bad happens. I can listen to tunes, have an argument with someone, breast feed a baby, whatever, the driver is driving the car, I'm just a passenger.
As I understand it, there's no reason you'd need a Driving License to ride in a Waymo for example. Waymo is driving, you're in the back like a cab, why would you need a license?
>Jim would drive in a blizzard, some Level 5 car refuses to drive in a blizzard. Is the car faulty by this definition or is Jim a lunatic ?
What if staying where he is poses a greater risk to Jim than driving on the road? Why should the car decide for Jim what an acceptable level of risk is, when Jim (presumably) has more information to make that decision?
I'm sure you could make the same argument for why the elevator should work even in a fire. But, you might have noticed if you live or work in a tall building, it explicitly doesn't work in a fire. We decided as a society you don't get to make that choice - because it's very rare this is actually a good idea but people would do it anyway.
There are multiple reasons why the two situations are not comparable:
1. The elevator does not belong to you. The building manager setting whatever policies on its usage that they want does not violate your right to use your property however you like. For it to be analogous, during a blizzard the road would have to refuse to let your car onto it.
2. While you use the elevator, no one else (such as fire crews) can use it. You driving your car does not prevent anyone else from doing the same.
3. In a fire, there are alternative routes of escape other than the elevator. I suppose the same is not true in a skyscraper. Do elevators shut down in those too? If you're several kilometers from, say, a hospital, you may not have any reasonable alternatives to driving to the hospital in inclement weather.
I wouldn't think that the idea that hardware should obey its operator would need to be defended in HN of all places.
> I suppose the same is not true in a skyscraper. Do elevators shut down in those too?
Generally, yes. In very tall buildings it will often be possible to seek authorization to use elevators for evacuation but you need to specifically arrange for the elevators and rest of the building to be suitable, in most cases it makes more sense for the evacuation plan to rely on stairwells instead. Walking down even 100 flights is a huge annoyance, but it's not impossible for able-bodied adults.
You'll know if you visit a building where the elevators are to be used in evacuation because they'll say very clearly on them that's what you should do, it's part of the regulations authorizing such things in the US and other countries I looked at with this allowance.
In addition most tall residential buildings have "Remain in place" strategies where evacuation would rarely be needed because the building is supposed to be designed so that most occupants are in no danger from likely emergencies such as a fire in another residence.
> I wouldn't think that the idea that hardware should obey its operator would need to be defended in HN of all places.
"I am entitled to whatever I want" is indeed a pretty common libertarian nonsense we see on HN but it tend to get shot down more often than not. There's no reason that hardware should be designed to do unreasonable things just because that's "obeying its operator".
>There's no reason that hardware should be designed to do unreasonable things just because that's "obeying its operator".
You're not talking about designing a piece of hardware to do unreasonable things. You're talking about designing a piece of hardware to be unable to do arbitrary things. Why do I say arbitrary? Because the designer is not omniscient. They cannot conceive of all the possible future situations in which their product will be used. Are you really unable to imagine situations where it might be necessary to drive on the road regardless of the conditions outside?
That aside, this has nothing to do with libertarianism or "doing whatever you want". I'm not saying if you decide to drive on the road in such conditions you should not be liable if you cause an accident. I'm saying, simply, "people should be able to use their property however they like". That doesn't seem like such a controversial idea to me. Or are you saying you shouldn't be able to do that? You don't trust yourself to use your property responsibly?
What if there were some situation where I needed to rig the battery of my car to discharge so fast it explodes? Since the hardware can be physically driven to do that, obviously the software should support doing it. The designers of the software are just nannying me by not enabling the 'self destruct' capability that my property has. They just don't trust me to use it responsibly.
> Even your Level 5 domain is dubious as I've written before. Jim would drive in a blizzard, some Level 5 car refuses to drive in a blizzard. Is the car faulty by this definition or is Jim a lunatic ? I think it's probably Jim.
I would put it up to the "reasonable person" test. I'm not sure what's dubious about the fact that "human level" doesn't and can't mean you're a perfect match to every human.
> I think Level 4 is clearer because it's closer to public transit.
I don't know if it's clearer in the general case. Basically any set of operating restrictions that is sub-human counts as level 4, and you could have a detailed and nuanced list of operating restrictions on level 4 that's just as complicated or more complicated than a level 5 setup.
> As I understand it, there's no reason you'd need a Driving License to ride in a Waymo for example. Waymo is driving, you're in the back like a cab, why would you need a license?
You "need" a license and insurance because Waymo and other self-driving companies will never ever allow a scenario where they're liable for accidents. They'll move heaven and earth to prevent it.
Do you have any source that you need a license and insurance to ride with a Waymo car?
Because according to the Waymo One public service rules [1] you need to be 18 or older to use the app and order a Waymo, but they don't mention anything about requiring a license or insurance.
It would also be a weird requirement, since you sit in the back and couldn't control the car even if you wanted to.
> “From our perspective at Waymo, a Level 4 vehicle is a vehicle in which you can put a rider who doesn't have a driver’s license or vision and they could move from point A to point B,” Krafcik said. “If you need a driver’s license, you can’t call it self-driving.”
Level 2 is 0 seconds; the driver has to watch constantly.
Level 4 is indefinite, or alternatively we could say "minutes". The car can pull over if necessary.
For this particular level 3 system, it's 10 seconds. That seems pretty reasonable for level 3.
And as you said, the ODD of levels 3 and 4 is entirely up to the manufacturer. Only level 5 has a domain by definition, which is matching human ability.