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

131–140 of 190 posts

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

#131

Post by pj_mukh »

oldgradstudent wrote: post #130
pj_mukh wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"AVs are not better than the status quo" We don't have the data to claim this, this confidently, and the only way to get the data is let the experiment keep running in the real world (only place that matters). There will obviously with holes in the awareness (literal missing cameras under the car) that's what the testing is for . If someone says they can sit in a room, in a simulation environment and come up with all…

> We don't have the data to claim this, this confidently, and the only way to get the data is let the experiment keep running in the real world (only place that matters). How about we start with something simpler: have Waymo, Cruise and their likes produce a rigorous safety case[1] arguing why their vehicles are safe. Once the safety case is in the open, we can also evaluate how well their system satisfy the claims i…

This is just..more paperwork, but sure, highly unlikely that these companies don't have this report built internally already. And like I said, there will be scenarios not covered by it, because we simply don't know what they are and can't think it up.

But if we're doing this, lets also make human Drivers do this, and for real parity, make sure all human drivers are kitted out with all the same cameras and logging systems we ask of from autonomous car companies, auto submitted to the DMV.

Then analyze all the reports on an annual basis to see if the human and/or autonomous agent should be allowed to continue to operate on the road.

I think people forget that driving is not a right but a privilege, I agree that both humans and autonomous agents should earn this privilege.

P.S: If the claim is that a one-time DMV driving test is enough, then that should be enough for autonomous cars as well (I'm not making that claim)

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

#132

Post by oldgradstudent »

pj_mukh wrote: post #131
oldgradstudent wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don't have the data to claim this, this confidently, and the only way to get the data is let the experiment keep running in the real world (only place that matters). How about we start with something simpler: have Waymo, Cruise and their likes produce a rigorous safety case[1] arguing why their vehicles are safe. Once the safety case is in the open, we can also evaluate how well their system satisfy the claims i…

This is just..more paperwork, but sure, highly unlikely that these companies don't have this report built internally already. And like I said, there will be scenarios not covered by it, because we simply don't know what they are and can't think it up. But if we're doing this, lets also make human Drivers do this, and for real parity, make sure all human drivers are kitted out with all the same cameras and logging sys…

> I agree, but if we're doing this, lets also make Human Drivers do this, and for real parity, make sure all human drivers are kitted out with all the same cameras and logging systems we ask of from autonomous car companies, auto submitted to the DMV.

Human drivers are the status quo. Once you consistently show that self driving can do better there would be a point in discussing that.

The problem is that you can't because such technology simply does not exist. There is no perception technology that is reliable enough. There is no prediction technology that is reliable enough.

To me it is obvious that Cruise and Waymo (and their likes) simply cannot withstand any serious scrutiny.

> P.S: If the claim is that a one-time DMV driving test is enough, then that should be enough for autonomous cars as well (I'm not making that claim)

The DMV driving test is just one element. We also know how human develop and what skills they acquire and when.

We don't let them drive until they're 15-17 (depending on local laws) because they lack certain abilities earlier than that. For example, humans acquire object permanance at around 24 months.

The Cruise incident shows that Cruise vehicles lack object permanance. They should not be elegible even for a DMV appointment.

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

#134

Post by macintux »

patrick451 wrote: post #127
pj_mukh wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A humans awareness is not constant. It waxes and wanes, even more so with cellphones in hand. The status quo is indefensible so setting up moving unknowable goal posts for something to replace them doesn’t make sense to me. This particular problem can be easily solved by cameras in the under carriage to make sure there aren’t humans shoved in there by other bad drivers. I wouldn’t mind making that a requirement acros…

> A humans awareness is not constant. It waxes and wanes, even more so with cellphones in hand. And even with supposedly* perfectly consistent awareness, the automation still failed catastrophically. > The status quo is indefensible so setting up moving unknowable goal posts for something to replace them doesn’t make sense to me. AVs are not better than the status quo, making them even less defensible. A human would…

> A human would not have drug that poor women for 20 feet because it was compelled to execute a pull-over maneuver.

I know someone who was drug for several feet by a human driver who didn't realize he was under her car. He was very fortunate to survive.

I'm skeptical about AVs, and this was definitely a bad look for them, but your response gives far too much credit to people.

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

#135

Post by code_runner »

southerntofu wrote: post #114
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 gues…

Sounds like the market works and you can easily find the cars you’re looking for that last “forever”

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

#136

Post by code_runner »

spondylosaurus wrote: post #25
batmansmk wrote: post #14

Having to be remotely operated every 2.5 to 5 miles seem to defeat most of the economics of self driving cars. Back of the napkin math, cars drive at an average of 18mph in cities, so every 10-20min. Let’s assume it takes over for 1min, and that you need remote drivers not too far for ping purposes, so at the same hourly rate. To guarantee you’ll be able to take over all demands immediately, due to the birthday parad…

Yeah, the driver-to-passenger ratio is still way less efficient than a train or even a bus.

Infrastructure cost could be considered as well. Like it or not but not every part of the world has the same desire nor infrastructure for mass public transport.

Not saying it’s right or wrong, just stating the other half of the equation

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

#137

Post by tw04 »

southerntofu wrote: post #114
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 gues…

They do? Nobody is forcing you to buy a decked out Cadillac. If you want to buy a base model Malibu for $25k, I'm sure you can find a dealer that will gladly sell it to you.

If you want a brand new car for $10k you’re going to need a time machine, or move to a country without modern safety standards.

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

#138

Post by pj_mukh »

oldgradstudent wrote: post #132
pj_mukh wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just..more paperwork, but sure, highly unlikely that these companies don't have this report built internally already. And like I said, there will be scenarios not covered by it, because we simply don't know what they are and can't think it up. But if we're doing this, lets also make human Drivers do this, and for real parity, make sure all human drivers are kitted out with all the same cameras and logging sys…

> I agree, but if we're doing this, lets also make Human Drivers do this, and for real parity, make sure all human drivers are kitted out with all the same cameras and logging systems we ask of from autonomous car companies, auto submitted to the DMV. Human drivers are the status quo. Once you consistently show that self driving can do better there would be a point in discussing that. The problem is that you can't be…

“Human drivers are the status quo”

And I have REAMS of data showing how the status quo is unacceptable. Humans are impetuous, impatient, emotional, inconsistent and terribly distracted. Just a slow rolling, ongoing, widespread disaster on the road.

I have zero data (not anecdotes) to show that particular autonomous companies are somehow worse. They have object permanence btw (occluded object tracking is a thing), just not for their undercarriage (for now).

So either let’s come up with an objective set of metrics on a set timeline for them to meet and get legalized or let them back on the road so we can figure out what those metrics could be.

When automobiles with human drivers were growing we just let them grow, default accept.

I will vehemently oppose any suggestion that now we must be default reject.

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

#139

Post by AmigoCharlie »

Look, isn't remotely assisted driving something unbelievably stupid? Why should I rely, when I am on my "driverless" car, rely on someone else who is remote, need to be updated at all times about the situation (when things can go wrong in a matter of tenth of seconds, while driving), and needs to react, and it's not as much motivated as me (as I am risking my life, while he is sitting somewhere without having as much skin in the game as me)? It makes a lot more sense, then, to have just an assisted driving car, or a semi-autonomous car where the "assistant" to the AI it's me and not someone else.
Post reply on HN