Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cruise's 3rd generation self-driving car

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 236 posts

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

#131

Post by elevensies »

arosier wrote: post #35

From my discussions with a friend with intimate knowledge of the software side of Cruise, there is wild skepticism within the co that they even have the hardware needed to go L4 or L5. Big promises being made to GM by Kyle which is leading to smoke and mirrors to distract/buy time from more critical problems "under the hood."

They say they are putting them on the roads of CA in a matter of weeks. I believe miles driven and disengagements must be reported around the end of 2017. So it should be easy enough to determine is four months or so if they're doing significant autonomous miles.

( here is the 2016 report: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/deade5b7-5b10-4b25... , found here: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/disen... )

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

#132

Post by mholt »

maxerickson wrote: post #123
mholt wrote: post #121

At this point, I'm not really going to be impressed until just ONE self-driving car company even talks about being able to handle snow and fog, preferably their cars knowing when they can't drive safely in the conditions. (It's not just about seeing through moisture: it's also about traction, something you can't really use sensors to enhance.)

Computers are so much better at detecting traction problems that electronic stability control is mandatory in most new vehicles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control#R...

Cool. But sometimes the road is just plain impassable. And having grown up in many Iowa winter blizzards, I still don't trust even electronic systems. They help, but sometimes there's nothing you can do when there's basically no friction.

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

#133

Post by otakucode »

bjtitus wrote: post #75
aerovistae wrote: post #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'…

I always question whether humans are really any better at this calculation. In the gnome example, many people will probably stop to avoid damaging their property, not see the car behind them careening forward, and end up getting rear ended anyway. In an ideal world, ethical issues like the one you presented would be major hurdles but humans aren't going to be perfectly rational in the moment of many accidents, especi…

Are humans any better at flying? Doesn't seem to impact how they feel about getting into an airplane.

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

#134

Post by manmal »

robotresearcher wrote: post #130
adewinter wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "go L4 or L5" mean?

They are Lagrange Points. The cars don't have the hardware to reach them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point Or maybe there's some notation collision...

It's about level 1-5 autonomy.

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

#135

Post by otakucode »

oaktowner wrote: post #86
bjtitus wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always question whether humans are really any better at this calculation. In the gnome example, many people will probably stop to avoid damaging their property, not see the car behind them careening forward, and end up getting rear ended anyway. In an ideal world, ethical issues like the one you presented would be major hurdles but humans aren't going to be perfectly rational in the moment of many accidents, especi…

The other thing to bear in mind: I would guess that the vast majority of accidents are caused by people not paying attention -- distracted by a phone, person, great view, or even just because they're looking the wrong direction. Cars don't do any of those things. They will always be paying attention, looking in all directions at once. So if they eliminate all of the accidents that are caused that way, but increase th…

If given a choice between changing from what you are used to which has drawbacks, to something new that has drawbacks, even if those drawbacks are markedly milder, almost everyone will choose to stick with where they already are. Consciously choosing a position which has drawbacks that you know about makes you feel personally responsible for those when they occur. That is infinitely worse than suffering the drawbacks of the "default" you stay with which you can give yourself a moral pass on because it wasn't a situation you chose to begin with.

There's also the issue of what a self-driving car could do... and what they WILL do. Much technology COULD be amazing... if companies did not function in the ways that they actually do. Because of that, technology often fails to meet any of the promises made. Development is supposed to be cheap and fast, and safety and security get left at the door. No company is held liable for such things, and it would be expensive and bothersome to fix, so they're not about to bother.

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

#136

Post by bryananderson »

ricardobeat wrote: post #91
bryananderson wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people believe that public transportation does not enable sprawl? A great commuter rail system is what allows people who work in the world's premiere cities to live in strip-mall exurbs and take the train to work. I live in Washington, DC. Metro is what allows huge numbers of people to live in sprawling suburbs instead of in the city. Yes, some drive, but traffic is rough and would be unbearable without Metro.…

Urban sprawl involves low-density areas. Metropolitan areas are going to spread out regardless. What cars enable is sprawl even when there is not enough density/economic output to make mass public transport viable.

Mass transit enables people to live in low-density areas who otherwise could not.

A massive proportion of the DC area population lives in the burbs, drives to a cheap/nearby parking garage at a transit center, and then takes mass transit into the city to work.

This lifestyle would be impossible without mass transit.

What makes you think that density/economic output are the main factors in how much public transit actually gets built?

EDIT: I actually love public transit, but I just don't see any evidence that it does anything but encourage sprawl just like cars do. Also, public mass transit's environmental advantage over cars will vanish with electrification. What public transit does do extremely well is get people from A to B with high throughput. That by itself is highly valuable in any major city.

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

#137

Post by HeroOfAges »

otakucode wrote: post #119

Hop into our self-driving car! It was designed by a team of inexperienced developers working under a manager who foreshortened deadlines and delivered ahead of schedule and under budget! The software guys asked for crazy things like 'bug trackers' and 'static analysis tools', but we kept their nose to the grindstone. Some of them said the software required more testing, but you know software guys, always such nervous…

Haha! Love it! This is precisely how enterprise software is developed and if you look at the way our industry has trained its managers, I can't think of any reason why the people that make decisions about these things can be convinced to do anything differently. I mean, if you can build buggy software for a Point of Service system this way, surely you can do the same thing with self driving cars! It's just software! How hard can it be?

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

#138

Post by [deleted] »

aerovistae wrote: post #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'…

[deleted]

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

#139

Post by tim333 »

eco wrote: post #96
Fricken wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, they're pretty close. Late this year or 2018 they'll have cars driving around empty. GM has consistently been underestimated by the public, but they've played their cards very well. It's in no small part due to the drive and leadership of Kyle Vogt, who is on his way to the big leagues to join the ranks of Musk, Bezos, and Jobs and those guys.

Is there anywhere that allows autonomous cars to be tested on real roads without a fallback human driver?

Volvos were supposed to be rolling in London and Gothenburg this year but it hasn't happened yet. They were supposed to have a member of the public who could snooze or read a book.

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

#140

Post by dmode »

I read the whole blog post, but not sure what's the difference between this car and the Tesla with 2.5 Autopilot hardware. Isn't that a production ready car that will give you autonomous L4/L5 "some day" ? Or is there some fundamental difference that I am missing out on ?
Post reply on HN