Autonomous Vehicle Industry Press not doing their Due Diligence

While some members of the press rightfully call out Elon Musk’s hype overall the group acts more like marketers and groupies than reporters. Take the case of Musk’s Level 4 hype. Their push back on Elon is the degree of hype not the core hype. Meaning they like most of the industry believe public shadow and safety driving as the primary approach to development and testing is tenable and the thousands of causalities it will cause when accident scenarios are run is a necessary evil. They could not be more wrong. See my article here for more.

Remote Control for Autonomous Vehicles — A far worse idea than the use of Public Shadow “Safety” Driving


And then there is this. Designated Driver (and Phantom Auto) make remote control systems that they say can replace safety drivers. The press has helped them press two extremely misleading and dangerous propaganda pieces this week.

A transatlantic feat for teleoperation startup


Drifting champion tackles Goodwood with VR, 5G and one tiny startup’s tech


A couple of points/questions regarding the hype and these “reporters” or members of the press not doing their due diligence. (The next question is are they being played or going along for the ride?)

- Do they see that the drifting test is NOT realistic? It uses a local, possibly point to point network, and the driver is alone on an open play field/track. If the tech is legitimate why not show cross-country networks with scenarios where successive quick lateral maneuvers are needed. Now show traction loss in the same scenario.

- Regarding those realistic scenarios. They say it is 5000k miles. So that round trip would be 10,000 miles. 100msec latency round trip? With no critical data retransmissions required? Measured from the wheel movement to video change for remote driver? No satellite hops? How far does a vehicle go especially laterally in that time? What happens with serial quick lateral moves? Loss of traction? And there can be no motion cues otherwise the driver will get sick. (See more in my article here — Remote Control for Autonomous Vehicles — A far worse idea than the use of Public Shadow “Safety” Driving — — )

What we need is for the members of the press or reporters to stop buying in to the hype, separate themselves from the echo chamber, stop enlisting in fan clubs, stop putting the public at risk, misleading them and providing false confidence and do their jobs and the public good. (And please feel free to start that due diligence with me. Be glad to discuss the issues in more detail, provide supporting data etc.)

P.S. — This goes for most industry “experts” as well.

Please find my articles below that address each of these myths. (As well as a relevant bio)

All the Autonomous Vehicle makers combined would not get remotely close to L4

Simulation Gaming Engines cannot get you to a legitimate L4 Autonomous Vehicle

SAE Autonomous Vehicle Engineering Magazine-End Public Shadow Driving

Common Misconceptions about Aerospace/DoD/FAA Simulation for Autonomous Vehicles

The Hype of Geofencing for Autonomous Vehicles

My name is Michael DeKort — I am a former system engineer, engineering and program manager for Lockheed Martin. I worked in aircraft simulation, the software engineering manager for all of NORAD, the Aegis Weapon System, and on C4ISR for DHS

I am a member of the SAE On-Road Autonomous Driving Validation & Verification Task Force and the acting Lead for the new SAE Modeling and Simulation Task Force

I am a stakeholder for UL4600 — Creating AV Safety Guidelines.

I have also been presented the IEEE Barus Ethics Award and am on the IEEE Artificial Intelligence & Autonomous Systems Policy Committee (AI&ASPC)

My company is Dactle

We are building an aerospace/DoD/FAA level D, full L4/5 simulation-based testing and AI system with an end-state scenario matrix to address several of the critical issues in the AV/OEM industry I mentioned in my articles below. This includes replacing 99.9% of public shadow and safety driving. As well as dealing with significant real-time, model fidelity and loading/scaling issues caused by using gaming engines and other architectures. (Issues Unity will confirm. We are now working together. We are also working with UAV companies). If not remedied these issues will lead to false confidence and performance differences between what the Plan believes will happen and what actually happens. If someone would like to see a demo or discuss this further please let me know.

Systems Engineer, Engineering/Program Management -- DoD/Aerospace/IT - Autonomous Systems Air & Ground, FAA Simulation, UAM, V2X, C4ISR, Cybersecurity