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

151–160 of 190 posts

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

#151

Post by DANmode »

vlovich123 wrote: post #150
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…

Did NYT not reach out to you for comment? Curious why your reply is here instead of within the article itself.

If I was in a position to choose, I think I'd speak directly to engineers, too.

Word of mouth via tech influencers is far more important than you're giving credit.

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

#152

Post by kelipso »

DANmode wrote: post #151
vlovich123 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did NYT not reach out to you for comment? Curious why your reply is here instead of within the article itself.

If I was in a position to choose, I think I'd speak directly to engineers, too. Word of mouth via tech influencers is far more important than you're giving credit.

Well you also don't have to answer any uncomfortable questions here if you don't want to.

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

#153

Post by twoWhlsGud »

icedistilled wrote: post #101
wolverine876 wrote: post #20

> Two months ago, Kyle Vogt, the chief executive of Cruise, choked up as he recounted how a driver had killed a 4-year-old girl in a stroller at a San Francisco intersection. “It barely made the news,” he said, pausing to collect himself. “Sorry. I get emotional.” ... > Cruise’s board has hired the law firm Quinn Emanuel to investigate the company’s response to the incident, including its interactions with regulators…

People like to say self driving cars are safer than human drivers - but the human drivers that tend to do the most unsafe antics seem to be the humans that are least likely to make use of self driving cars.

Seeing that they're the one who, if there were more alternatives (like those generated by low-cost taxi services enabled by autonomy) would be less likely to have licenses, I don't think this follows at all...

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

#154

Post by patrick451 »

pj_mukh wrote: post #128
patrick451 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"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).

I don't have to prove it. It's incumbent on the AV evangelists to prove they are better. I signed up to be a driver on roads with other humans. I have zero interest in being part of this experiment. Especially not when it comes out of silicon valley.

For an industry that claims to be all about safety and fixing how dangerous driving is, I expected them to be taking inspiration from Boeing and the commercial airlines. The remarkable, steadily improving safety record of the Airline industry should have been the paragon. Instead, they've copied the move-fast-and-break things playbook from the silicon valley tech bros. Which makes all of these claims hard to take seriously.

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

#155

Post by [deleted] »

wolverine876 wrote: post #28

If humans need to remotely intervene for a car in motion, that implies it could impact safety. If that's correct, then the remote signaling of a problem and the human's response and control must have flawless availability and low latency. How does Cruise achieve that? Cellular isn't that reliable. Maybe I misunderstand something.

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by pj_mukh »

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 "

Yea, it would probably be a lot more [1]. This is from...just last week. Its a pretty constant occurence. Its only in the paper of record because it happened in New York.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/26/nyregion/nypd-tow-truck-b...

"Mr. Hayes said that after the collision, the child’s mother chased the tow truck down the street, screaming that the driver had killed her baby."

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

#157

Post by lacker »

It sounds like there are a lot of people working at GM who don't like Cruise and are willing to complain to the NYT about it. One of those frustrating "we're a startup inside a large company" things.

Cruise employees worry that there is no easy way to fix the company’s problems.

Company insiders are putting the blame for what went wrong on a tech industry culture.

What, because car companies with car company culture are doing such a great job building self-driving cars?

I'm rooting for both Cruise and Waymo here. Self-driving cars would be great for humanity. Good luck to the teams working hard to make them happen.

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

#158

Post by getwiththeprog »

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…

Where are your remote operators located?

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

#159

Post by vowelless »

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…

Where are these remote assistant human drivers located (country), and how have they been screened for temporarily “driving” vehicles in those cities (do these humans have American licenses? ). How is all this regulated?

Basically, I am curious if these remote assistant drivers are located in foreign nations without American licenses. And if so, how did you get them cleared to be able to “drive” cars on Americas roads?

Thanks

Ps: I took a cruise once in Austin and it needed remote assistance.

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

#160

Post by simonebrunozzi »

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…

Hi Kyle (hello again), thanks for being so transparent with this.

I suspect this is a moment where news are looking for a scapegoat / villain from the AV sector, and your team is an easy target given what has happened recently.

I believe that transparency is the right way to address issues and concerns. Please keep doing that.

Post reply on HN