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

181–190 of 190 posts

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

#181

Post by oldgradstudent »

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…

> 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.

Looks like Cruise was well aware they are not even close to the average human driver when it comes to handling kids.

They didn't bother to tell us about that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38170848

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

#182

Post by mrWiz »

gruez wrote: post #163
patrick451 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's telling that you declined a request for an interview, yet still feel the need to clarify on HN. You'd be doing a lot better with transparency and public trust by just taking the interview.

Is there something that's covered by an interview that a list of questions or email exchange wouldn't? Interviews take up a valuable chunk of the CEOs time, so I'm somewhat sympathetic to them declining it.

That equations needs to weigh how valuable it would be to tell your side of the story in an NYT interview compared to having no comment.

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

#183

Post by CogitoCogito »

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.

Why the need to choose? Cruise could take an interview for the article as well as comment here.

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

#184

Post by DANmode »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #183
DANmode wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why the need to choose? Cruise could take an interview for the article as well as comment here.

Media can be vultures for the click.

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

#185

Post by CogitoCogito »

DANmode wrote: post #184
CogitoCogito wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the need to choose? Cruise could take an interview for the article as well as comment here.

Media can be vultures for the click.

I'm not really sure what you mean there, but I do know that companies are happy to make unsubstantiated claims. One way news organizations deal with this reality is by interviewing the company and questioning them when things are not clear. Personally I find it likelier that Cruise has things to hide if they don't want to answer interview questions, but I guess that's just me.

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

#186

Post by famous »

gruez wrote: post #163
patrick451 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's telling that you declined a request for an interview, yet still feel the need to clarify on HN. You'd be doing a lot better with transparency and public trust by just taking the interview.

Is there something that's covered by an interview that a list of questions or email exchange wouldn't? Interviews take up a valuable chunk of the CEOs time, so I'm somewhat sympathetic to them declining it.

Reporters take email interviews and interviews with corporate officers besides CEOs all the time. Any CEO can get a media relations person to write up an email response and then check it over quickly -- or have, for example, the CTO do it instead.

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

#187

Post by momento_uno »

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…

2-4% is very high. It essentially means none of your trips can be completed without remote intervention.

This puts your cars and the safety of the whole city at the mercy of reliability of mobile networks. This is a fundamental architectural change in the design of the city. Do the telecom operators take liability if they can't meet their designed SLOs for availability? What are the worse case scenarios that you have considered?

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

#189

Post by [deleted] »

pj_mukh wrote: post #175
patrick451 wrote: post #154

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). 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

[deleted]

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

#190

Post by patrick451 »

pj_mukh wrote: post #175
patrick451 wrote: post #154

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). 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

When I have talked to Cruise engineers, they use the phrase "Move fast and break things" regularly. They have said to my face that that is their culture. They are proud of it. That kind of culture is not how you get an aerospace-like safety record.
Post reply on HN