Something new - for me - happened today.(Sorry, didn't make a note of the version, but it updated itself a few days ago.) I was once again briefly using AP2 since I was driving alone and wanted to test it.



Clear conditions, divided motorway, right-hand lane, left-lane empty, clear white lane markings, lead car ahead, slight curvature towards the left, nothing major, this is a motorway after all. Then the lead car moves over to the lane on the left. When the lead car changes lanes, AP2 actually starts to follow it to the other lane. Never mind these clear white markings on the road and the fact that I'm not touching the blinker stalk...



There was nobody around, so I let it do its thing. Halfway through following the lead car (somewhere on top of the lane markings), AP2 kind of fidgets and doesn't seem to think this is a good idea after all (really!?!) and turns back a bit, then back left a bit, and back right one more time, fidgeting smack in the middle of two lanes, before calling it quits and disabling itself with a bong.



That was interesting. I guess the algorithm really, really likes its lead car. The road marking were clear, the weather and light was good, there was no sun facing us, it was suitably overcast. AP2 just decided to abandon the gently curving lane markings and follow the sideways moving lead car instead.



While new in detail, this, generally speaking, is really typical of AP2. It just does not default to following the logical road markings and makes no "safe bet" assumptions about what's likely to come next, it seems. It seems it has no "smarts" about what the road likely might contain.



Someone noted that the older AP1 will happily follow road markings to a concrete divider if they lead there and judging by the infamous video that is true. AP1, while this is counter-intuitive in a way, is actually very logical and smart here. If the system is limited (as both AP1 and AP2 are) and does not know better, it is better to follow a lane to a divider, if the lane actually leads to a divider, than to make something up. Of course disabling the system and making an evasive maneuver while/before doing so would be even better, but what would not be good is deciding to "invent" virtual lanes (like a human can e.g. in a non-painted roadworks area), unless the system can really understand how to invent them...



Neither AP1 or AP2 can understand the road beyond road markings or sides, no that kind of NN magic is not there yet. AP1 assumes road markings more often than not make sense, so it defaults to following them in a way that makes sense, instead of picking up on some stray tar-line and twisting towards that like AP2 does at times... Unlike AP1, AP2 will happily not follow any such logic, but do something quite different instead - nobody just knows what and when. I'd rather take the tame AP1 logic at this stage of development.



It is better to have a predictable system that is limited, than an unpredictable system that is just as limited.

Click to expand...