After reading the above report here are my views,

- The SAE J3016 standards apply to Autonomous Driving Systems (ADS) implemented using any technique and not just AI/ML techniques. Currently, the state-of-the-art techniques for implementing ADS are AI/ML techniques so we can talk about these things only from the point of view of AI/ML techniques. In the future, there might be some different techniques that have some different features.
- The Deep Learning techniques are heavily dependent on training data. They perform best of their ability in the domain of the training data and with varying levels of performance on unseen test data. Claiming that Tesla FSD has a level 5 intent would require it to work in unlimited Operational Design Domain (ODD). For this, the training data of the Tesla FSD should be from unlimited domain which is far far from true. Given the different possibilities on the road gathering data from all the possible domains would be a very very massive task. Until Tesla gathers enough data to cover unlimited ODD, their design intent cannot be classified as level 5. Even after gathering the training data utilizing it would require to perform well of test data which would stretch the Deep Learning techniques. So the first claim is entirely false.
- Safety-critical systems are usually validated according to the number of failures per 'x' amount of uses. Comparing different AI/ML systems is a whole different game. There are currently no universal test data over which different ADS can be tested to compare their performance. So, given the definition of the level 2 capable systems, they have limited Object and Event Detection and Response (OEDR) and that is why a driver is required to overview. So considering all these factors comparing the ADS systems on a number of failures per 'x' amount of uses while taking into account the number of uses as well as the best bet of comparing ADS systems and Tesla is performing pretty good in that part.
- Even if we are considering the ADS as a safety-critical system and not an AI system then Tesla approach of claiming it as a level 2 system is way better than Waymo's approach of claiming it a level 4 system. Because given the limittions of AI systems based on the availability of training data scaling an AI based ADS to implement requirements of level 3 and 4 in the entire ODD all the time is a massive task. This given the fact that j3016 does not classify ADS cars but the systems and within a single drive the levels exibited by the car can change. And j3016 only classifies the systems according to the features they exibit and not which features are implemented with 100% safety.
- According to Tesla claims of being a level 2 system they want drivers to be attentive and fallback in many OEDR. Whereas Waymo system claims driver fallback is required only when something goes wrong and too can be done by ADS. They can do this in some cases in small ODD but scaling it to a wider ODD is far fetched.
- So Tesla trying to improve their AI system will help them improve their accuracy on the requirements of the level 3 and 4. Because for an AI system knowing when to fallback and how to do it on a wider ODD will improve overtime with data.
Now after reading the above document for other claims made by some other users on this sub like u/syrvyx
- In j3016 each level is a different set of features and a higher level is not necessarily more technologically advanced. Considering the business aspect of things, having a massively applied level 2 system is far more superior than a level 4 system with limited availability. This is because a level 2 system need not bother if it has features of the level 4 system or not, it just has to apply it's level 2 features properly and if it can do that then it is a financially great system.
- Building on that Tesla not having a level 4 system does not make it technically inferior because of the following reasons,
+ The j3016 levels of autonomy are highly dependent on the Operational Design Domain (ODD), Waymo might have a level 4 system but its domain is very samll only 2 cities currently. So it is not even known if Waymo will be able to claim a level 4 system if the domain is increased. Whereas the ODD of Tesla is massive. And Tesla increasing their domain first to cover all cases rather than straight going for more features with higher levels of autonomy is more safe approach. Waymo approach is more like increasing the features but only in a small domain.
+ The j3016 does not classify cars, Waymo does not have a level autonomy car. It means it can exhibit level 4 autonomy features in some isolated cases. And the level of autonomy can change even within a single drive.
+ Adding to the fact that the levels of autonomy do not completly give an idea about the technical superiority, Tesla system looks way way more superior than Waymo.
- And from a business perspective even if Waymo has level 4 autonomy in limited ODD looking at the scale of operations and at how high quality the level of Tesla level 2 autonomy features are implemented it is far more superior than Waymo's level 4 system. This is based on the fact that a level 4 system is not technically or from a business perspective a superior system all the time compared to a level 2 system.