How we will know Autonomous Vehicle makers (and Remote Ops folks) stopped the Hype and are doing something significant
The answer?
It’s all about the light of day
When someone is doing something of significance they don’t need to hype or hide data. Yes, they will hide data on how they do it. But not that they do it. Particularly in this industry where money is drying up, valuations have dropped tremendously, companies are going bankrupt and the public’s trust keeps going down.
The Signs of Significance
· Providing Disengagement and the associated Root Cause Data
· Show Tested Scenarios
· The edge, corner cases or long-tails cited are not dumbed down
· Providing proof that the scenarios have been properly developed and tested and the simulation used is a legitimate digital twin
· They drive the creation of Testable Safety Standards and Scenarios
· Remote Operation companies will admit lag over 16msec is a problem. As well as the resulting lack of motion cues. They will then limit their use cases accordingly, especially on public roads. And explain there may be times inadequate and dangerous remote ops may be the best of several bad options.
More in my articles here
The Autonomous Vehicle Industry can be Saved by doing the Opposite of what is being done now
Remote Control for Autonomous Vehicles — A far worse idea than the use of Public “Safety” Driving
How we will know Autonomous Vehicle makers have started using viable development and test methods
Autonomous Vehicle Industry’s Self-Inflicted and Avoidable Collapse — Ongoing Update
· https://medium.com/@imispgh/i-predicted-this-a-year-and-a-half-ago-1b47bf098b03
Proposal for Successfully Creating an Autonomous Ground or Air Vehicle
Simulation can create a Complete Digital Twin of the Real World if DoD/Aerospace Technology is used
Simulation Photorealism is almost Irrelevant for Autonomous Vehicle Development and Testing
Autonomous Vehicles Need to Have Accidents to Develop this Technology
Using the Real World is better than Proper Simulation for AV Development — NONSENSE
The Hype of Geofencing for Autonomous Vehicles
· https://medium.com/@imispgh/the-hype-of-geofencing-for-autonomous-vehicles-bd964cb14d16
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.
Key Industry Participation
- Founder SAE On-Road Autonomous Driving Simulation Task Force
- Member SAE ORAD Verification and Validation Task Force
- Stakeholder for UL4600 — Creating AV Safety Guidelines
- Member of the IEEE Artificial Intelligence & Autonomous Systems Policy Committee (AI&ASPC)
- Presented the IEEE Barus Ethics Award for Post 9/11 Efforts
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.
