Apart from SF, they have also started testing in LA.

Level 4 means full autonomy over all normal driving conditions. Waymo does not handle complex construction sites like a normal human driver would, a fact verifiable by many thousands of people. It does not have level 4 autonomy.

Looks like the article got backlash too because the editor inserted an editor's note in quite large font right in the middle of the article clarifying it.

> Level 4 means full autonomy over all normal driving conditions.

Aren't you describing Level 5?

From what I see online, Level 4 means

"The car can operate without human input or oversight but only under select conditions defined by factors such as road type or geographic area"

Waymo has been operating geo-fenced self-driving cars without drivers present. It may not handle complex situations, but that isn't expected out of L4.

Level 5 means full autonomy over all known driving conditions. Including dirt roads, etc.

Otherwise there would need to be a level 6.

What's the difference between "all normal driving conditions" (your definition of Level 4) and "all known driving conditions" (your definition of L5)?

These are not my definitions, they are the SAE's definitions. As anyone can verify themselves by visiting SAE.org

Even with SAE's definition, Waymo seems to be at L4: https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update

It would only be the case if their claim is solely evaluated within certain limited areas. With the rest of the road network being ignored.

Level 4 means full autonomy within certain predefined conditions. In Cruise's case, this might be, "Only in certain parts of San Francisco at night." This qualifies for Level 4.

What's stopping someone from predefining it to mean "Only within a specific parking lot"? And then claiming they achieved Level 4?

Nothing. That is the definition of level 4. Level 5 is no restrictions.

Seems like a silly way of assessing levels of autonomy then. Maybe it doesn't make sense to allow it to be predefined to an arbitrarily small area?

Googlers can't reply to posts like this, irrespective of where they stand on the issue, because this is an ongoing legal matter.

Disclaimer - I am a Googler.

P.S. Rather than passing snark comments about what others do, maybe try talking to any of them. Any employee of a significantly sized company could have guessed that.

Googler, opinions are my own.

100% this. Even if we come here and express our opinions, or even express them internally on discussion forums and email, or chat, any of those communications are open to discovery by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff sees any value to anything an employee of the defendant company says, said employee could then be pulled into the lawsuit, be deposed, and many other non-fun things.

Well I'm sure there are many googlers out there that would love to comment on this, for our own sanity, we likely wouldn't.

> Googlers can't reply to posts like this, irrespective of where they stand on the issue, because this is an ongoing legal matter.

Is this true? I know this to be true for actual parties involved, and I'm sure you can't speak on behalf of Google, but I'm not aware of any law or even company policy where private citizens are barred from voicing their own opinions, without divulging non-public information, in a legal matter where they aren't a party (though their employer may be).

As for "fear of retaliation" from your employer, that applies regardless of whether this is an ongoing legal matter or not.

so you as humans are controlled from voicing your opinion by your corporate? So your moral compass depends on your employer?

Edit: I did not mean to dictate what anyone must do, but as a person you are entitled to have an opinion, to stand up. If you are going to base your moral compass based on what others decide. May be one day, you wont even bother having it. Im not hatching a big conspiracy here, but we must always keep some actions in mind irrespective of what courts decide. Courts are run by humans too, and humans make mistakes.

no, all he said is you can't comment on ongoing legal matters. I have no idea how you went from that to "humans are controlled from voicing your opinion by your corporate".

this is pretty standard. even in personal matters your lawyer will probably ask you to shut up.

I made an edit to my original parent comment. Please do refer it.

You could just use a throwaway account.

I think he is referring to Sundar Pichai

Sundar is just an employee who worked his way up through the ranks...he was not involved in founding Google.

But the poster never mentioned founders, he says leaders. Even when talking about Microsoft, I think he is referring to Satya Nadella since both Gates & Balmer were not immigrants.