Live data from Hacker News

Cruise's 3rd generation self-driving car

medium.com

61–70 of 236 posts

Re: Cruise's 3rd generation self-driving car

#61
post #47
post #16

Wow. FYI - This is how you mess up content marketing. If the author genuinely wanted me to read the article and get to know the brand, he shouldn't have used such a scummy title. Yes, the article is /technically/ true. But they are only talking about the hardware, and acknowledge in the second paragraph that they don't have the software. So while the title implies self-driving cars are a solved problem, they are real…

I didn't get that impression. Paragraph two says they have "the most advanced self-driving software ever demonstrated," which has been in use driving cars around in real city traffic on their prototypes or whatever (according to their youtube videos), but the article seems to be saying that they now have designed and built mass-producible cars that can run the software. (If I'm wrong, then yeah, not only the title bu…

I guess the hedge-word there is "demonstrated". I'm not sure if Waymo et al have ever demonstrated their most advanced software to the public.

Re: Cruise's 3rd generation self-driving car

#62
post #56

deleted

deleted Hm. http://archive.is/VhWor

Please don't use URL shorteners as it obscures the destination URL.

Edit to add: Also, if the intent was to reveal what was deleted, I would lean on the side of respecting someone's right to retract what they said. We've all said something that we regret saying. If you think there's something untoward going on, you can contact the HN mods via the Contact link in the footer.

Re: Cruise's 3rd generation self-driving car

#63
While I'm almost always bullish on new tech, self-driving cars are one where I frankly have a pretty hard time buying into the hype. I think when they really start to hit the streets, some issues are going to show up.

Here's what I mean. Imagine this situation:

You're pulling into your driveway in your self-driving car, and one of your kids left a lawn gnome there, blocking it. The car won't go forward because there's an obstacle.

Simultaneously, a driver looking at their phone and not paying attention comes careening down the road. They're clearly going to rear-end you, hard. You COULD just pull forward and out of the way.....but the car won't, because of the lawn gnome. It can't know the lawn gnome doesn't matter in comparison to the damage your car is about to suffer.

Imagine this flip scenario:

You're pulling into your driveway in your self-driving car, and one of your kids, a toddler, is in your way. The car won't go forward because there's an obstacle. Otherwise, same situation as above. Now, you ABSOLUTELY do NOT want to pull forward, because you'd rather get rear-ended than run over your child.

Even if you want to nitpick this exact scenario, surely you can think of a hundred similar contexts yourself, where driving involves understanding the value of different pieces of the car's immediate environment. A car cannot know the value of a child versus a lawn gnome, nor can it reliably detect the difference.

Even if such a situation only arises once in a thousand days of driving, with hundreds of millions of people on the road everyday, that's thousands of times per day. That's really bad.

Is it statistically better than the amount of harm done by human drivers? Possibly. But we all still get in cars believing we'll be better than other drivers. Who's going to get in a car when any given car has an equivalent chance of making a bad decision all on its own? It's just like getting in a car with a drunk driver.

Who's going to sign up for that? Not me, that's for sure.

Re: Cruise's 3rd generation self-driving car

#64
post #62
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

deleted Hm. http://archive.is/VhWor

Please don't use URL shorteners as it obscures the destination URL. Edit to add: Also, if the intent was to reveal what was deleted, I would lean on the side of respecting someone's right to retract what they said. We've all said something that we regret saying. If you think there's something untoward going on, you can contact the HN mods via the Contact link in the footer.

[deleted]

Re: Cruise's 3rd generation self-driving car

#67
post #16

Wow. FYI - This is how you mess up content marketing. If the author genuinely wanted me to read the article and get to know the brand, he shouldn't have used such a scummy title. Yes, the article is /technically/ true. But they are only talking about the hardware, and acknowledge in the second paragraph that they don't have the software. So while the title implies self-driving cars are a solved problem, they are real…

Regardless of whether it's true or not, the title is a great example of the "no true Scotsman". [0]

A: We built the first real self-driving car.

B: What about the Waymo car?

A: That's not a _real_ self-driving car.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Re: Cruise's 3rd generation self-driving car

#70
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once they actually have cars driving empty we will actually learn how close or how far are they. I've seen a lot of PR muscle flexing from big companies before and no longer believe any such stuff. They do that to impress investors and the public, but this has nothing to do with reality.

This PR announcement isn't the only data point, GM has the goods to back it up.

Your comments sound like a PR statement, what goods? How do you know how close they are?

Looks to me that they designed a mass-producible car outfitted with self-driving systems (which is very cool!). But they are only just starting to do employee testing. Waymo has been doing that for years.

Post reply on HN