Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

21–30 of 190 posts

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

#21
This is the same whacky theory I've been spreading about Tesla self-driving for a year or so. "Imagine Tesla self-driving is like some dude driving your car via videogame on the other side of the world."

Most people are pretty sure my theory is wrong. I have absolutely no evidence this is true, it's just some crazy idea that popped into my head one day.

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

#22

> 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…

Independent third parties don't work for free and if you pay them (by your logic) they're no longer independent. The best you can probably hope for is a government investigation.

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

#23

> 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…

Can you explain what you mean by “after the first”?

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

#24
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Half of Cruise’s 400 cars were in San Francisco when the driverless operations were stopped. Those vehicles were supported by a vast operations staff, with 1.5 workers per vehicle. The workers intervened to assist the company’s vehicles every 2.5 to five miles, according to two people familiar with is operations. In other words, they frequently had to do something to remotely control a car after receiving a cellul…

That's a terrible disengagement rate. Cruise claimed in 2020 "Cruise, for comparison, clocked 831,040 miles with a disengagement rate of 0.082 (per 1000 miles)" [1] Something's not right here. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2020-02-27-waymo-disengagement-cali...

Companies measure multiple disengagement rates for different purposes. The DMV numbers are usually safety rate numbers, as in "if a human hadn't intervened there may have been an accident or near miss". The specifics vary company-to-company, and they'll have a large document somewhere laying out exactly what the criteria are. The numbers in the article are some other metric, though I have no idea what. I'm a bit skeptical that it's the average over their entire ODD, given that it's much higher than my own experiences and most of their vehicles were running around the outer city at night, where they seemingly did okay.

It could reflect some particular ODD (e.g. downtown at rush hour) where the vehicles didn't do nearly as well, or something else entirely.

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

#25

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.

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

#26
Cruise is leveraging human-in-the-loop to expand faster than they otherwise would, with the hope that they will solve autonomy later to bring this down.

I don't think this is a viable strategy though given the enormous costs and challenges involved.

There doesn't exist a short-term timeline where Cruise makes money, and the window is rapidly closing. They needed to expand to show big revenues, even if they had to throw 1.5 bodies per car at the problem.

Prediction: GM will offload cruise, a buyer will replace leadership and layoff 40% of the company. The tech may live to see another day, but given the challenges that GM has generally (strikes, EVs, etc), they can no longer endlessly subsidize Cruise.

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

#27
post #23

> 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…

Can you explain what you mean by “after the first”?

Presumably they meant that the first paragraph they quoted looked to them like a "performative charade".

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

#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.

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

#29
post #27
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain what you mean by “after the first”?

Presumably they meant that the first paragraph they quoted looked to them like a "performative charade".

Yes. I'll clarify.

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

#30
post #22

> 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…

Independent third parties don't work for free and if you pay them (by your logic) they're no longer independent. The best you can probably hope for is a government investigation.

There are ways to do it. Non-profits don't need payment, always, and their mission isn't profit. For example, companies have worked with environmental non-profits on internal climate change and other issues.
Post reply on HN