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

Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Francisco

getcruise.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 652 posts

Re: Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Francisco

#601

Post by bluGill »

gitfan86 wrote: post #101
whimsicalism wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A helpful link for your perusal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

But are you using confirmation bias to find a cognitive bias that fits here. But, In all seriousness we don't have access to the data across all 60k FSD users to know what the intervention rate is and how it has been changing over time.

We do have previous statements that as they get better they are moving to harder situations. Start with empty roads, and once you can do them well start finding harder and harder situations. When you start you avoid construction zones, once you are doing well you start looking for them.

Re: Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Francisco

#602

Post by aantix »

threeseed wrote: post #99
enjoylife wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are betting that hardware combination is the fastest to market, given the constraints of today software. When the ml stack is capable of leveraging purely camera sensors, Cruise and others like them, own the fleet and can swap out the hardware. Tesla does not "own" the fleet per se. So perhaps its different bets on which cars will still be on the road when the ML threshold is crossed.

> when the ML threshold is crossed If, not when. Even the most cutting edge research today still pales in comparison to LiDAR.

Would Tesla be ahead if they had incorporated LiDAR?

Because they already have the data advantage for ML.

Re: Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Francisco

#603

Post by clsec »

kfarr wrote: post #174
more_corn wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once threw myself in front of a cruise vehicle to test it for safety. (That’s a bit of an exaggeration, I saw it coming, sped up and jumped into an open parking spot on a trajectory that would take me in front of I didn’t stop) It performed admirably. The safety driver didn’t see me coming but the computer did. The car decelerated to the point it would be able to stop if I kept coming. The safety driver couldn’t fi…

Can confirm from personal experience in crosswalks with self driving cars: cruise is the most timid (read safest!) of the self driving cars being tested in SF IMHO. Cruise will proactively alter trajectory (such as deceleration) for pedestrians and cyclists at a noticeably earlier threshold than Waymo. This is much more pleasant for everyone surrounding the vehicle as it clearly expresses that you have been recognize…

Unfortunately, during the massive storms in the fall, I witnessed a Cruise car drive right through an intersection where the lights were out. I witnessed a Waymo car make the stop at the same intersection. I live above said intersection and watch it a lot.

Re: Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Francisco

#604

Post by belter »

notreallyserio wrote: post #485
ZephyrBlu wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After watching your linked videos I'm actually really impressed with it.

It looks great for an early alpha. It needs a fair amount of improvements before it will be ready to be released to end users, though.

Now they just need to draw the Rest of the Owl...

https://www.reddit.com/r/restofthefuckingowl/

Re: Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Francisco

#605

Post by FireBeyond »

amacneil wrote: post #442
justapassenger wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sensor cost is a lame excuse, especially coming from a company that's one of the leaders of EV world. Battery prices are decreasing, but sensors wouldn't? Tesla put constrain on themselves, because they wanted to sell product years before they existed, and they were super cheap on HW, to optimize their costs. They optimized their solution, before they even had a slightest idea what's needed to make it work.

I don't think it's a lame excuse at all. Tesla barely managed to get a profitable car on the market given battery costs, and had to bet their company on a strategy of massive investment and reducing costs over a decade+ period. They are also ahead of every other auto maker in commercially purchasable L2 autopilot. With that context, it doesn't make sense to add $50k+ to the price of their cars (e.g. doubling the cost…

> Tesla barely managed to get a profitable car on the market given battery costs, and had to bet their company on a strategy of massive investment and reducing costs over a decade+ period.

Numbers came out a few days ago showing that Teslas had some of the highest margins in the mainstream auto segment.

Re: Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Francisco

#606

Post by bluGill »

pmorici wrote: post #49
walrus01 wrote: post #8

Based on this image: https://images.ctfassets.net/95kuvdv8zn1v/6h1C7lPC79OLOlddEE... They and their VC backers are clearly betting on the concept that radars + lidar + imaging will be the ultimate successful solution in full self driving cars, as a completely opposite design and engineering philosophy from Tesla attempting to do "full self driving" with camera sensors and categorical rejection of lidar. It is interes…

They are wholly owned by GM are they not? Starting this way doesn’t preclude them taking Tesla’s vision only approach in the future. Even Tesla initially had a radar vision combination approach before moving to pure vision. The real question with whatever technique being used is can they drive the hardware cost low enough that it can be widely deployed.

I don't know who owns them. (see other discussion). I do know that automakers have aggressively partnered on self driving. Once this is ready for mainstream a most automakers will all introduce it because they all have rights to it.

I don't know the contract, it is likely that there is some ordering where the luxury brands can sell it first. It will be rolled down to cheap brands as needed (depending either on market demand, or legal mandates)

Re: Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Francisco

#607

Post by gibsonf1 »

wutbrodo wrote: post #448
gibsonf1 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you have a conceptual AI with causal systems understanding reacting in real-time to a spacetime model of the world based on current and recent events, people are going to get injured and or killed by unusual real-world events riding in these autonomous cars. Although cats and dogs have great perception, we don't let them drive our cars for a reason.

> people are going to get injured and or killed by unusual real-world events riding in these autonomous cars I don't think anyone inside or outside of the AV industry is expecting that there will be zero injuries or fatalities involving AVs. Why would that be the bar, when AV rides displace human drives that already injure and kill tens of thousands?

The difference would be frequency of injury and/or death as AV cars can't think and react dynamically to non-pattern situations.

Re: Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Francisco

#608

Post by FireBeyond »

adrr wrote: post #95
parkingrift wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla will release L4 or L5 self driving this year. Musk said it himself. Please ignore the fact that this is the 7th (or more?) year in a row he has said this.

I still want a functional autopilot that doesn't phantom brake on the freeway which has gotten worse since they stopped relying on radar. Or have the self park feature not curb the wheels. I won't even get started on the summon feature.

"Use Summon to bring your vehicle to you while dealing with a fussy child", unless you ask Legal, in which "pay attention to vehicle at all times. Do not use distracted" is the use case, you mean?

Re: Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Francisco

#609

Post by bluGill »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #475
silentsea90 wrote: post #411

Can we just call out how incredibly awesome this is? We might stumble along the way but this is as big as moving from horse carts to cars. Respect to all of you working on self driving cars!

> Can we just call out how incredibly awesome this is? We might stumble along the way but this is as big as moving from horse carts to cars. I find it a bit hard to believe that people aren't more concerned about calling out what exact legal framework this operation is being allowed under. Having a car without a driver in it driving around seems like a massive risk for the drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists sharing…

Sure I'm concerned about that. I'm also very concerned about how bad human drivers are and how deadly cars are. So long as they beat humans I'm happy to have them. (I'd rather have great transit, but I'll take what I can get)

Re: Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Francisco

#610

Post by bluGill »

alexchamberlain wrote: post #189
mlindner wrote: post #163

I'm not interested in cars I can't own. This idea that we'll turn cars into some kind of service and convert roads into places filled with company-owned vehicles is completely foreign. At that point it'd be cheaper to have self-driving buses and subways. I can only think this viewpoint comes from people who have only ever lived in cities where car ownership is inconvenient given the lack of personal garages. At the m…

City dweller, raised in a village in the east of England. I got my license 3 months after my 17th and already had a car - I've had a car ever since. I'd give it up in a heartbeat if hiring a car was easier and more economical, but the reality is that for visiting family over weekends, renting would cost about the same as owning the car full time. The convenience of then having the car ready to go whenever you want it…

I think that depends on your taste in cars. If you trade in your car for a new one every 3 years then shared cars will save you money. However if you drive a 23 year old car (ie the car I drive) then it is fully depreciated and so paying for a nice new car to drive you around has to cost more.

Of course it also depends on how much you drive. If you only drive a few times per month that is very different from driving hundreds of miles per day.

I've concluded that the majority of suburban dwellers will own their own car even where shared cars are possible to get. Because of the amount of driving they do a shared car won't save them much if anything, and by owning a car they can leave "stuff" in the trunk.

Post reply on HN