[Retric]

> There is no proof

That’s an odd requirement. There is no proof Intel will ever put out a faster chip. There is in general no proof for any new technology because it hasn’t been built yet.

Narrow city streets aren’t vastly different than normal city streets, and people used to constantly say sure operating on highways is easy, show me self driving cars inside cities. I think people underestimate how long self driving cars are going to take, but they are already good enough to be useful which means companies will continually invest in being just a little bit better.

Looking back automatic transmissions took decades and where seriously flawed for most of that time, but just a little bit better every year and eventually they became the default. Cruse control and every other major innovation went through that same cycle, it’s just that once something is good enough to be the default it has been around so long nobody wakes up and says “wow it’s finally ready” because it’s been in use for a long time.

IMO, take everything people are generally expecting self driving to be in 2030 and it’s going to be ready in 2060 and the default by 2090.

[Animats]

Here's WeRide testing in an urban village area of China.[1] The system is being very cautious, but is doing fine.

Here's Waymo, dealing with San Francisco streets.[2] Right now, Waymo is offering some rides in SF on a trial basis. Fully autonomous. No safety driver. 29 cameras, some radars, multiple LIDAR units. Full hemisphere coverage for each sensor.

It's getting steadily closer.

[1] https://twitter.com/i/status/1400772458991407113

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CVInKMz9cA

[Wronnay]

I agree with your comment, but I understood the author's level 2 as something which can be realized with existing technology. Meaning there is already a prototype.

There is no prototype for complete full driving, including very difficult situations - so I see that as level 3.

[Retric]

Level 2 says Tomorrow as in technology that’s in development. I read Level 3 as when people talk about the potential for say intersections without traffic lights and the end to gridlock. That’s not just exaggeration or extrapolation of current research but hopeful projections without anything even vaguely in the pipeline for development. Aka the semantic web and other rather grandiose ideas.

The first generation of cruse control didn’t shift gears making it useless for maintaining speed up and down steep hills but it provided the basic functionality on a reasonable subset of roads. It was still called cruse control. So, my point was a Tesla’s ability to drive from a limited set of parking spaces to another set of parking spaces by crossing public streets, covers the basic description of self driving. It’s a poor implementation but fulfills the basic premise of you not having to turn the steering wheel and ending up your destination even if it has a host of limitations. Doing that but in Paris is really more of the same.

(Edited the above several times.)

[danielmarkbruce]

How would one build a prototype for "complete full driving" ?