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

GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 190 posts

Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving

#111

Post by tameware »

ra7 wrote: post #69
kvogt wrote: post #60

Cruise CEO here. Some relevant context follows. Cruise AVs are being remotely assisted (RA) 2-4% of the time on average, in complex urban environments. This is low enough already that there isn’t a huge cost benefit to optimizing much further, especially given how useful it is to have humans review things in certain situations. The stat quoted by nyt is how frequently the AVs initiate an RA session. Of those, many ar…

Thanks for the clarifying! This makes a lot of sense. I think NYT did a really poor job of explaining the remote assistance bit.

Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.

Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving

#112

Post by gctwnl »

kvogt wrote: post #60

Cruise CEO here. Some relevant context follows. Cruise AVs are being remotely assisted (RA) 2-4% of the time on average, in complex urban environments. This is low enough already that there isn’t a huge cost benefit to optimizing much further, especially given how useful it is to have humans review things in certain situations. The stat quoted by nyt is how frequently the AVs initiate an RA session. Of those, many ar…

I would consider this realistic service design, just as Meta’s Cicero (plays blitz Diplomacy) is smart design. It might work as a service.

What the answer glances over is that even with just 3% of the time requiring human assistance (2 minutes out of every hour) the term ‘autonomous vehicle’ is not really applicable anymore in the sense everybody is using/understanding that term. The idea behind that term assumed ‘full’ autonomy. Self driving cars. And there is no reason to assume that this is still in sight. The answer puts that ‘self-driving car’ on the shelf.

PS. Human assistent seems to me a difficult job, given the constant speed and concentration requirements.

Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving

#113

Post by orwin »

cheeselip420 wrote: post #48
dontblink wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Waymo/Google winning here in your opinion?

Waymo will have challenges scaling rapidly, but they may be able to get some sort of favorable unit economics and expand more slowly. Tesla has the scale and for some reason regulators give them a pass. I wouldn't bet against Elon, but we aren't there yet...

Writing off lidar that early is killing Tesla's chances imho. The exec who took that decision should hate himself.

Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving

#114

Post by southerntofu »

kvogt wrote: post #60

Cruise CEO here. Some relevant context follows. Cruise AVs are being remotely assisted (RA) 2-4% of the time on average, in complex urban environments. This is low enough already that there isn’t a huge cost benefit to optimizing much further, especially given how useful it is to have humans review things in certain situations. The stat quoted by nyt is how frequently the AVs initiate an RA session. Of those, many ar…

Hello Cruise CEO, there's a huge market for durable and profitable "dumb" cars. Why don't you get on that market? In a time when electronics represents over 30% of car costs and ~50% of car failures, people like me would be happy to buy a car that doesn't suck (low-tech) and can be maintained for decades for a reasonable price. In the meantime, i'll keep buying old Renault/Peugeot cars from the fifties/sixties i guess :(

Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving

#115

Post by jdjdjdhhd »

kvogt wrote: post #60

Cruise CEO here. Some relevant context follows. Cruise AVs are being remotely assisted (RA) 2-4% of the time on average, in complex urban environments. This is low enough already that there isn’t a huge cost benefit to optimizing much further, especially given how useful it is to have humans review things in certain situations. The stat quoted by nyt is how frequently the AVs initiate an RA session. Of those, many ar…

Can spying be disabled on your cars?

Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving

#116

Post by oldgradstudent »

pj_mukh wrote: post #99
oldgradstudent wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US on average, there's a fatality every ~85 million miles driven, and that's an average that includes motorcyclists without helmets, old unsafe unmaintained cars, the worst roads, and adverse weather conditions. Cruise barely drove a few million miles with new modern cars, good weather, the ability to choose optimal roads and weather, and yet it already severely injured a pedestrian. We can argue about Cruise…

I'm not sure why you're comparing fatality miles vs no-fatality-accident-that-cruise-didn't-cause miles (i.e. we have no idea how safe Cruise would be if there were no human drivers on the road) That's not even close to a fair comparison. We just have to admit that there isn't a fair comparison yet and everyone's just got an axe to grind.

> I'm not sure why you're comparing fatality miles vs no-fatality-accident-that-cruise-didn't-cause miles

Because it's not that everyone ignores road fatalities, it's just that cruise hasn't driven (in terms of miles amd conditions) nowhere near to what might result in a fatality with human drivers.

Even then, in an incident they've not initiated, they've unnecessariliy made an existing bad situation far far worse.

> (i.e. we have no idea how safe Cruise would be if there were no human drivers on the road)

Self-driving cars have to exist in a world with human drivers, pedestrians, and the rest of reality. No one cares how well Cruise does in a sterile environment.

They should not only not cause incidents, they should also not make existing incidents far worse because of terrible decisions.

Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving

#117

Post by [deleted] »

oldgradstudent wrote: post #116
pj_mukh wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why you're comparing fatality miles vs no-fatality-accident-that-cruise-didn't-cause miles (i.e. we have no idea how safe Cruise would be if there were no human drivers on the road) That's not even close to a fair comparison. We just have to admit that there isn't a fair comparison yet and everyone's just got an axe to grind.

> I'm not sure why you're comparing fatality miles vs no-fatality-accident-that-cruise-didn't-cause miles Because it's not that everyone ignores road fatalities, it's just that cruise hasn't driven (in terms of miles amd conditions) nowhere near to what might result in a fatality with human drivers. Even then, in an incident they've not initiated, they've unnecessariliy made an existing bad situation far far worse. >…

[deleted]

Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving

#118

Post by pj_mukh »

oldgradstudent wrote: post #116
pj_mukh wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why you're comparing fatality miles vs no-fatality-accident-that-cruise-didn't-cause miles (i.e. we have no idea how safe Cruise would be if there were no human drivers on the road) That's not even close to a fair comparison. We just have to admit that there isn't a fair comparison yet and everyone's just got an axe to grind.

> I'm not sure why you're comparing fatality miles vs no-fatality-accident-that-cruise-didn't-cause miles Because it's not that everyone ignores road fatalities, it's just that cruise hasn't driven (in terms of miles amd conditions) nowhere near to what might result in a fatality with human drivers. Even then, in an incident they've not initiated, they've unnecessariliy made an existing bad situation far far worse. >…

“ They should not only not cause incidents, they should also not make existing incidents far worse because of terrible decisions.”

Just FYI, it made this terrible decision because people were mad at cruise for stopping in the middle of the road to decide if it was safe to proceed. They were asked to change that behavior and pull over and they did, this time just dragging a human along.

So yes let’s set these absurdly high standards, while we leave children to fend for themselves against human drivers that have met non-existent standards on a continual basis.

But then let’s actually leave the autonomous cars on the road to test if they’re actually meeting them.

As you agreed, some statistic they figure out in a sterile or simulation environment doesn’t actually matter. Let’s put them back on the road..

Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving

#119

Post by patrick451 »

pj_mukh wrote: post #118
oldgradstudent wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure why you're comparing fatality miles vs no-fatality-accident-that-cruise-didn't-cause miles Because it's not that everyone ignores road fatalities, it's just that cruise hasn't driven (in terms of miles amd conditions) nowhere near to what might result in a fatality with human drivers. Even then, in an incident they've not initiated, they've unnecessariliy made an existing bad situation far far worse. >…

“ They should not only not cause incidents, they should also not make existing incidents far worse because of terrible decisions.” Just FYI, it made this terrible decision because people were mad at cruise for stopping in the middle of the road to decide if it was safe to proceed. They were asked to change that behavior and pull over and they did, this time just dragging a human along. So yes let’s set these absurdly…

This is the problem with self driving cars. A human has the awareness to pull over when it's appropriate and also is able to recognize they just ran over somebody and it's best to stop completely. But AVs seem to just have a dumb if/else statement to control this behavior (yes, I know it is actually more complex than that, I work in this space. But that is how they behave).

Driving is infinitely complex. It's becoming increasingly clear that the current approach to AVs not up to the challenge.

Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving

#120

Post by pests »

wolverine876 wrote: post #109
pests wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> performative charade How is it performative? Is it not sad that a 4-year-old girl in a stroller got killed by a car? That it barely made the news? Or is that just not sad and is normal these days?

Lots of sad things happen. Why is a sophisticated public communicator taking the time to tell this very self-serving story, tear up about it, etc.? It's not incidental; he prepared it. Spare me your trolling.

Sorry you are so desensitized.
Post reply on HN