IIHS Produces Fatally Flawed and Dangerous Report on L2 and Handover
This is a fatally flawed report that enables the reckless and untenable status quo.
It assumes public shadow and safety driving can lead to L4 and the human Guinea pigs injured or killed to develop and test these systems are necessary. It also assumes handover can provide enough time to regain proper situational awareness in all scenarios especially time critical ones. NONE of this is remotely true.
It is a myth that public shadow and safety driving can create a legitimate autonomous vehicle and that the lives the process takes are necessary and for the greater good. It is impossible to drive the trillion miles or spend $300B to stumble and restumble on all the scenarios necessary to complete the effort. In addition, the process harms people for no reason. The first issue is handover. The process cannot be made safe for most complex scenarios because the time to regain proper situational awareness and do the right thing, especially in time critical scenarios. cannot be provided. Another dangerous area is learning accident scenarios. AV makers will have to run thousands of accident scenarios thousands of times to accomplish this. That will cause thousands of injuries and deaths. The next issues are Deep Learning, which is far to processing, time and money intensive, and is too easily confused. And finally, the use of gaming-based simulation technology which has too many technical limitations to facilitate the creation of a legitimate real-world digital twin.
The solution is L2 and L3 should not exist. 99% of this untenable and reckless development and testing approach should be transferred to proper simulation. That being DoD simulation technology based, not gaming technology based. As the latter cannot be used to create anything close to a legitimate digital twin.
IIHS, NHTSA, NTSB, the industry etc needs to do their due diligence and have the courage to rise above the echo chamber.
More information can be found here. Including how to resolve all of this.
Proposal for Successfully Creating an Autonomous Ground or Air Vehicle
Autonomous Vehicles Need to Have Accidents to Develop this Technology
Simulation can create a Complete Digital Twin of the Real World if DoD/Aerospace Technology is used
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
- Lead — SAE On-Road Autonomous Driving SAE Model and Simulation Task
- 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 Whistleblowing 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.