The “Autonowashing” Town Criers are Autonowashing and Avoiding the Root Cause

First, Tesla and Elon Musk deserve all the criticism they are getting about their “autopilot” name and stating they will be L5 soon. Yes, it is misleading. Yes, it would help if Tesla did not mislead people. However, it would not only barely make a dent in the problem it in no way addresses the root cause. Which the autonowash folks don’t want you to understand because they are guilty as well.

This brings me to the significant hypocrisy the industry, including most of its press, is undertaking in criticizing Tesla and using the term “Autonowashing” to do it.

Autonowashing — The practice of making unverified or misleading claims which misrepresent the appropriate level of human supervision required by a partially or semi-autonomous product, service or technology.

Virtually all the AV makers use human Guinea pigs as public “safety drivers” largely for no reason. That process will result in thousands of deaths. The reason for that being the machine, and in many cases deep learning, must experience scenarios over and over to learn them. That will include fatal accident scenarios in many cases. The other being that none of these systems can provide enough time to regain proper situational awareness to take over the vehicle properly in time critical scenarios. This will cause MORE needless injuries and deaths. Which means the folks using the term “Autonowashing” “misrepresent the appropriate level of human supervision required by a partially or semi-autonomous product, service or technology.” This makes the Autonowashing town criers disingenuous and hypocritical, invalidates any high ground they think they are on and leaves them tossing rocks from glass houses.

More in my articles here. Including how to do this right.

The Autonomous Vehicle Industry can be Saved by doing the Opposite of what is being done now to create this technology


Tesla “autopilot” development effort needs to be stopped and people held accountable


Autonomous Vehicles Need to Have Accidents to Develop this Technology

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.

Industry Participation — Air and Ground

- Founder SAE On-Road Autonomous Driving Simulation Task Force

- Member SAE ORAD Verification and Validation Task Force

- Member UNECE WP.29 SG2 Virtual Testing

- Stakeholder USDOT VOICES (Virtual Open Innovation Collaborative Environment for Safety)

- Member SAE G-34 / EUROCAE WG-114 Artificial Intelligence in Aviation

- Member CIVATAglobal — Civic Air Transport Association

- Stakeholder for UL4600 — Creating AV Safety Guidelines

- Member of the IEEE Artificial Intelligence & Autonomous Systems Policy Committee

- Presented the IEEE Barus Ethics Award for Post 9/11 DoD/DHS 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.

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