Do these fit the classification?
If these robotics startups get their way, this could be the year
delivery robots become a regular sight on city streets.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90291820/8-robots-racing-to-win-the-delivery-wars
On 13/8/19 3:00 pm, Roger Clarke wrote:
Queensland debuts "most advanced" driverless car in Oz
Matt Johnston
itNews
Aug 13 2019
https://www.itnews.com.au/news/queensland-debuts-most-advanced-driverless-car-in-oz-529501
...
The $1.5 million, purpose-built Renault ZOE2 completed the trip at
level four on the automation scale, where the car can travel fully
autonomously, but a human driver can still take control if needed.
Previous efforts from the Queensland Department of Transport and Main
Road’s (TMR) Connected and Autonomous Vehicle Initiative (CAVI) trial
have aimed for level three, or ‘conditional’ automation, where the car
can drive itself some of the time. Level five is full automation,
where carmakers won’t need to include a steering wheel.
...
[Does anyone know where this particular scale is published?
1. ?
2. ?
3. ‘conditional’ automation, the car can drive itself some of the time
4. Artefact Autonomy, human driver can take control 'if needed' (?)
5. Artefact Autonomy, no steering-wheel
[I've published a related but different scale, most recently here:
http://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/AII.html#TAA
Function of the Artefact Function of the Controller
...
5. Notify an Impending Action Override/Veto an Impending Action
6. Act and Inform Interrupt/Suspend/Cancel an Action
7. Act NIL
[I find it remarkable that artefacts, with serious potential for
action in the real world, operating in close proximity to even
property let alone people, may already have been authorised to be
outside human control.
[Can you shoot out the tyres? put up a (multi-sided) roadblock that
it can't get through or out of? Pity the police patrols that have to
find a way to run a rogue robot-car off the road. Oh, but surely
voyeurs, organised criminals, notoriety-seekers and terrorists
wouldn't investigate the possibilities, would they?
[I have Level 7 in there for things like buggies on Mars, where signal
latency precludes human control.
[My paper (above) continues:
>There appears to be de facto public acceptance of the notion of
delegation of low-level, real-time functions to artefacts [i.e. my 7,
their 5 - where the rapidity with which analysis, decision and action
need to be undertaken may preclude conscious human involvement (e.g.
aircraft trim and stability, collision avoidance)]. Even at that
level, however, AI is adding a further level of mystery.
>
>It remains to be seen whether the public will continue to accept
inexplicable events resulting in aircraft and driverless-vehicle
incidents. Following the crash of a second Boeing 737 Max in early
2019, the US President voiced a popular sentiment, to the effect that
pilots should be professionals who can easily and quickly take control
of their aircraft.
>
>That portends an edict that robot autonomy, at least for passenger
aircraft, will be limited to revocable autonomy (5-6), with layer 7
prohibited. In respect of less structured decisions [such as full
control of a vehicle's journey], there seems little prospect of public
acceptance even of revocable automated decision-making.
--
Marghanita da Cruz
Telephone: 0414-869202
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://ramin.com.au
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
