Can we just admit that this likely isn’t possible in our lifetime and put more money into early childhood education, better healthcare and geriatric care?
GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving
171–180 of 190 posts
Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm? I saw it exactly the opposite. A lot of people in the autonomous driving industry are driven by exactly what Vogt describes (little girl in the stroller etc.). See also Chris Urmson of Waymo fame's TED talk, he talks about a similar motivation[1]. Its a fallacy everyone conveniently ignores. The woman the Cruise car ran over was actually first hit by a human driver who is still at-large , not a peep about him. T…
> A lot of people in the autonomous driving industry are driven by exactly what Vogt describes (little girl in the stroller etc.). See also Chris Urmson of Waymo fame's TED talk, he talks about a similar motivation[1]. To me, that's evidence that it's performative. First, it's a talking point; it looks, smells, walks and talks just like typical corporate/industry framing and messaging, with even a 'think of the child…
The culture of Silicon Valley dictates that any performative charade be taken completely sincerely. It is just what it is. People like Holmes and SBF naturally arising from this from the obvious incentives are just the cost of doing business is this cultural environment.
Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving
#173Cruise 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…
[deleted]
Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving
#174Cruise 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…
So when low wage mechanical turk costs turn out cheaper than engineering to improve driverless vehs… this will just be another exploitative gig job for folks in remote locations? I don’t trust proper attention will be given to improvements in tech once profit and roi is considered compared to human labor costs especially in lower wage nations.
Well, low wage mechanical turk costs have not yet turned out to be cheaper and there's no reason to expect that to happen, so this is one channel for exploitation that I'm not going to worry about.
Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving
#175Earlier 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). 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…
I didn’t sign up to walk and bike with human drivers either (in fact I fight it daily) but here we are.
Cruise took 8 years before putting its truly driverless car on the road. “Move fast and break things” is a laughable idea here.
I will happily accept the safety record of flying, slowly achieved over a century of actually flying in the real world
Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ‘fu…
By this logic Tesla does not have "autonomous vehicles" either. They just do adjustments after the car crashes and kills someone instead of doing it online.
Tesla indeed does not have autonomous cars. They sell driver assistance.
Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving
#177Earlier 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...
Teslas have no redundancy for their sensors and depend upon unreliable GPS.
They have some level of redundant processing, but I've seen FSD disengage because of software faults without anything taking over.
They should never be allowed to run a rideshare service just due to this even if they do miraculously solve camera-only perception and not relying on HD maps.
Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true, but the numbers inflated even. There's no way they'll pay these people more than $15 or $20 an hour once it scales, which probably further helps your point.
It does have a much better work/life balance than most driving jobs, though.
True, but depending on how it ends up, it could be about 6000x more stressful. Like every 10 seconds being flipped into a new near crash scenario.
Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving
#179Cruise 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…
Your plan is to make someone in india remote control my car? What if the signal goes down? What if it lags and they accidentally give the wrong instructions?
This is the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard
Re: GM's Cruise alleged to rely on human operators to achieve "autonomous" driving
#180If 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.
Appears Cruise isn’t giving these remote drivers a steering wheel and gas; rather they make strategic decisions: Go around this, follow this path, pull over, etc. The car is able to follow a path on its own. Determining the correct path is where it gets hard.
And what if the man in india says to go around it, and this results in someone’s death. Who pays out?