Many factors in the self-driving industry have happened as I
anticipated. Consortia have formed, solidified,
and dissolved. Lawsuits have popped
up. A great bull market for technicians
and managers with top knowledge has materialized. And technical progress, along with investment
and business effort, has marched forward.
So, when looking at updating our employment and technology-saturation
projections, what less-expected events from the past year need to be
incorporated?
First, the crashes, especially the fatal one, received more
negative reaction than I would have thought.
They were not that disturbing, given the extreme situation with the
pedestrian in the dark and most others owing little or nothing to the vehicle’s
driverlessness. Yet it was worthwhile
for companies to see how people would react, as they were certain to occur
sometime.
Second, Uber, with its business recklessness, has muddied
the autonomous waters. The Arizona crash
was just one example of why it does not seem to have enough due diligence for
this field, and it is too easy for people to conflate its mistakes with the
work of far more reliable firms.
Third, it is possible, though it is hard for me to assess
from outside the field, that technical progress has been a shade slower than estimated.
Fourth, already have emerged some super-strong players,
particularly Waymo and Aptiv. They could
still end up Stanley Steamers to someone else’s Toyotas, but the chances are edging
down.
Fifth, remote human control, which two years ago I made a
stage of my own set of automation levels, is now getting press mention. In the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s Society of Automotive Engineers scheme, which I continue to
use as below, it would fit in well as an option for level 4, or high but not
full automation, or near the end of level 3, which still requires a driver to
be available.
Sixth, publicity, toward understandings of how many kinds of
autonomous vehicles and their interiors there will be and on how wide a range
of life-changing possibilities they will end up having, has started. Fall’s New
York Times magazine section was especially effective.
Seventh, it now looks likely that there will be real regional
differences in driverless-vehicle acceptance within the United States. That will be a phase lasting as long as ten
years and will for that time cut into overall proliferation acceptances.
Eighth, some other countries, particularly Russia and China,
have done their own autonomous research and development, but their closed
communication styles and lack of vetted progress make it difficult to consider
their efforts world-class.
With all these things considered, here are our new projections:
For definitions of the levels, see the original NHSTA
document at http://www.techrepublic.com/article/autonomous-driving-levels-0-to-5-understanding-the-differences/.
Stay with the Work’s New Age blog for at least quarterly
updates on the progress of driverless vehicles and its effect on jobs. We will publish our fourth forecast next
summer.
No comments:
Post a Comment