A Level 2 autopilot should be able to better predict when it will need human intervention. If the autopilot keeps itself in situations where it does better than humans most (not all) of the time, the system will outperform.

My view isn't one of technological optimism. Its derived from the low bar set by humans.

That's why Google concluded that L5 was the only way to go. You only get the benefit of computers being smarter than humans if the computer is in charge 100% of the time, which requires that its performance in the 1% of situations where there is an emergency must be better than the human's performance. That is the low bar to meet, but you still have to meet it.

Humans regularly mess up in supposedly-safe scenarios. Consider a machine that kills everyone in those 1% edge cases (which are in reality less frequent than 1%) and drives perfectly 99% of the time. I hypothesise it would still outperform humans.

Of course, you won't have 100% death in the edge cases. Either way, making the majority of travel safe in exchange for making edge cases more deadly to untrained drivers has a simple solution: a higher bar for licensing human drivers.

Well, no.

Some quick googling suggests that the fatality rate right now is roughly 1 per 100 million miles. So, for certain fatality in the case of human control to be an improvement, it would have to happen only about once in the lifespan of about every 500 million cars. In other words, the car would, for all practical purposes, have to be self driving.

The part that really bothers me (for some reason) is that those edge cases are frequently extremely mundane, uninteresting driving situations that even a child could resolve. They simply confuse the computer, for whatever reason.

I'm genuinely interested to see how consumers react to a reality wherein their overall driving safety is higher, but their odds of being killed (or killing others) are spread evenly across all driving environments.

Imagine the consumer (and driving habits) response to the first occasion wherein a self-driving car nicely drives itself through a 25MPH neighborhood, comes to a nice stop at a stop sign, and then drives right over the kid in the crosswalk that you're smiling and waving at. Turns out the kids coat was shimmering weirdly against the sunlight. Or whatever.

You are still misunderstanding the concern. The problem is not poorly trained drivers. The problem is that humans become less attentive after an extended period of problem-free automated operation.

I hear you trying to make a Trolley Problem argument, but that is not the issue here. L2 is dependent on humans serving as a reliable backup.

I understand the concern. I am saying the problem of slow return from periods of extended inattention is not significant in comparison to general human ineptitude.

Level 2 systems may rely on "humans serving as a reliable backup," but they won't always need their humans at a moment's notice. Being able to predict failure modes and (a) give ample warning before handing over control, (b) take default action, e.g. pulling over, and/or (c) refusing to drive when those conditions are likely all emerge as possible solutions.

In any case, I'm arguing that the predictable problem of inattention is outweighed by the stupid mistakes Level 2 autopilots will avoid 99% of the time. Yes, from time to time Level 2 autopilots will abruptly hand control over to an inattentive human who runs off a cliff. But that balances against all the accidents humans regularly get themselves into in situations a Level 2 system would handle with ease. It isn't a trolley problem, it's trading a big problem for a small one.

The original point - that level 2 is a terrible development goal for the average human driver - still stands.

Also, you are definitely invoking the trolley problem: trading a big number of deaths that aren't your fault for a smaller number that are. Again, not the issue here. L2 needs an alert human backup. Otherwise it could very well be less safe.

But I would say the thrust of your argument is not that off, if we just understand it as "we need to go beyond L2, pronto".

The problem here is NOT the untrained driver -- it is the attention span and loss of context.

I've undergone extensive higher training levels and passed much higher licensing tests to get my Road Racing license.

I can tell you from direct experience of both that the requirements of high-performance driving are basically the same as the requirements to successfully drive out of an emergency situation: you must 1)have complete command of the vehicle, 2) understand the grip and power situation at all the wheels, AND 3) have a full situational awareness and understand A) all the threats and their relative damage potential (oncoming truck vs tree, vs ditch, vs grass), and B) all the potential escape routes and their potential to mitigate damage (can I fit through that narrowing gap, can I handbrake & back into that wall, do I have the grip to turn into that side road... ?).

Training will improve #1 a lot.

For #2, situational awareness, and #3, understanding the threats and escapes, there is no substitute for being alert and aware IN THE SITUATION AHEAD OF TIME.

When driving at the limit, either racing or in an emergency, even getting a few tenths of a second behind can mean big trouble.

When you are actively driving and engaged, you HAVE CURRENT AWARENESS of road, conditions, traffic, grip, etc. You at least have a chance to stay on top of it.

With autopilot, even with the skills of Lewis Hamilton, you are already so far behind as to be doomed. 60 mph=88 feet/sec. It'll be a minimum of two seconds from when the autopilot alarms before you can even begin to get the situation and the wheel in hand. You're now 50 yards downrange, if you haven't already hit something.

Even with skills tested to exceed the next random 10,000 drivers on the road, the potential for this situation to occur would terrify me.

I might use such a partial system in low-risk situations like slow traffic where its annoying and the energies involved are fender-bender level. Otherwise, no way. Human vigilance and context siwtching is just not that good.

I can't wait for fully-capable autodriving technology, but this is asking for trouble.

Quit cargo-culting technology. There is a big valley of death between assist technologies and full-time automation.

It's a question that both sides of the discussion claim answers to, and both sound reasonable. The only real answer is data.

As you've said, killing 100% of the time in the 1% scenarios may very well be better than humans driving all the time. Better, as defined by less human life lost / injuries.

Though, one minor addition to that - is human perception. Even if numerically I've got a better chance to survive, not be injured, etc - in a 99% perfect auto-car, I'm not sure I'd buy it. Knowing that if I hear that buzzer I'm very likely to die is.. a bit unsettling.

Personally I'm just hoping for more advanced cruise control with radar identifying 2+ cars ahead of me knowing about upcoming stops/etc. It's a nice middle ground for me, until we get the Lvl5 thing.

Not dead, which I feel is important to point out. Involved in an incident, possibly a collision or loss of lane, but really it's quite hard to get dead in modern cars. A quick and dirty google shows 30,000 deaths and five and a half million crashes annually in the US - that's half a percent.

So in your hypothetical the computer drives 99% of the time, and of the 1% fuckups, less than 1% are fatal.

Even if the system has high confidence in its ability to handle a situation, if sufficient time has passed, request the driver resume control.

Then fusion the driver's inputs w/ the system's for either additional training data or backseat safety driving (e.g. system monitoring human driver).

More productively, Tesla currently senses hands on the wheel. Perhaps they could extend that with an interior camera that visually analyzes the driver's face to ensure their eyes are on the the road.