Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 692 posts

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#351

Post by root_axis »

sib wrote: post #322
root_axis wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tesla FSD is practically perfected Absolutely untrue. It's not even close to perfect. I use it a few times a week and while it's seen some significant improvements over the last year, it still makes pretty dangerous mistakes, especially on left turns, right-turn slip lanes, intersections with flashing yellow lights, streets with very worn road lines or where the positioning of the road lines shift from one side of…

You seem to have (accidentally?) left off the rest of the comment: "Tesla FSD is practically perfected, with no accidents whatsoever, under such conditions "

You're right. Thanks. I edited my comment to acknowledge that.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#352

Post by Hamuko »

porphyra wrote: post #264
jefftk wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very much aware of how Drive Pilot doesn't handle most cases: in my comment I described it as "super limited" and linked to where Mercedes describes the details. But within the range of cases where the Mercedes system is applicable (which recently went up to 59mph in Germany [1]) it's solidly better than the Tesla system because Mercedes did the engineering to make it reliable enough that you don't have to superv…

If Tesla were to artificially set up limitations like highway only, daytime, clearly visible lanes, good weather, car in front, no construction zones, no lane changes, etc, then they would easily have been able to offer full L3 and take full liability for it. Tesla FSD is practically perfected, with no accidents whatsoever, under such conditions already. But Elon wouldn't want to release this kind of gimped system as…

How can you claim that they could do it when they clearly are not doing it?

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#353

Post by astrange »

lang4d wrote: post #258
standardUser wrote: post #19

Waymo needs competition. Who else is even close to being able to provide it? I'd hate to think Tesla is next in line because they haven't even started a commercial pilot program yet.

Waymo is also in competition with non AV ride sharing companies. They'll need to make it more cost effective and/or (continue to) deliver higher quality rides

They're in competition with the individual drivers, not with the ridesharing companies. The expensive part is owning the cars.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#354

Post by astrange »

oceanplexian wrote: post #238
jjfoooo4 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would this help Tesla more than Waymo? Even supposing slanted regulatory rule making, Tesla’s autonomous capabilities are vastly inferior to Waymo. The rules can’t be that complicated, either you can drive a car autonomously on a given road or not. FWIW I’m a Tesla owner who rides Waymos whenever they are available for a cab ride, and won’t turn on FSD despite a number of free trials

Tesla has data from 5 million vehicles in real world conditions. What does Waymo have, a few hundred cars in San Francisco and Phoenix? In a field where data matters more than anything else, Tesla has an insane advantage.

Waymo (and every other AV company) mostly use simulated data. The real world stuff is very repetitive and not that important; they also don't collect nearly as much as you think they do.

And it doesn't help with the main issue, which is Tesla uses cameras and cameras don't work reliably at night, in glare, when they're dirty, etc.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#355

Post by astrange »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #211
Animats wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who else is even close to being able to provide it? Baidu/Apollo, maybe. There are deployed robo-taxis in China. Reviews of driving quality indicate "meh", they are sometimes directly teleoperated to get out of problems, and difficult intersections have fixed cameras the cars can see through.

Reading from intersection-mounted fixed cameras seems like a valid solution.

Has the issue with all cameras, which is that they don't work when they can't see.

Of course, if they're actually a more general kind of sensor but called a camera then it's fine.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#356

Post by astrange »

alwejrlaw wrote: post #284
jcgrillo wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to block off lanes and install sensors why not just lay track and use streetcars? Rail is way more efficient. This has been a solved problem for the better part of two centuries.

As much as I love urban rail, its usefulness scales in direct proportion to population density. Europe has >2x the population density of the US. Japan has 10x the population density of the US. Rail for transit just doesn't make as much sense for the US. It works in a few of our densest cities, but nowhere else. Buses are cheaper, simpler, and easier than rail, but also are useful in proportion to density.

Japan has pretty good rail in the parts of the country that aren't dense. The way you get it is (among other things) transit-oriented development, which the US has the exact opposite of when they surround suburban train stations with giant parking lots.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#357

Post by astrange »

htrp wrote: post #286
jcgrillo wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to block off lanes and install sensors why not just lay track and use streetcars? Rail is way more efficient. This has been a solved problem for the better part of two centuries.

I feel like we did that back in the '50s and then the auto lobby had us strip it all out (in the USA)

Earlier than that, and IIRC what actually happened was cities decided the streetcars were greedy, put price caps on the fares, and they went out of business.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#358

Post by astrange »

smaddox wrote: post #272
mensetmanusman wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently they have been surprised at how few photons are required to see for these sensors. They are skipping the image computer vision step and going from photons to car control in as few layers as possible.

Apparently they're using this CMOS sensor: https://www.onsemi.com/products/sensors/image-sensors/ar0136... It's not an event camera, so it's very much taking images, which are then being processed by computer vision algorithms. Event cameras seem more viable than CMOS sensors for autonomous vehicle applications in the absence of LIDAR. CMOS dynamic range and response isn't as good as the human eye. LIDAR+CMOS is cons…

Humans can also decide they want to get a better look at something and move their head (or block out the sun with their hands) which cameras generally don't do.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#359

Post by astrange »

Filligree wrote: post #139

I'm not sure I want autonomous vehicles to work. It would, inevitably, lead to more cars in cities. Probably faster cars. Both are the opposite of what we need; it isn't just about safety.

That's what congestion pricing is for.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#360

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

toast0 wrote: post #299
jcgrillo wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to block off lanes and install sensors why not just lay track and use streetcars? Rail is way more efficient. This has been a solved problem for the better part of two centuries.

Streetcar rails are terrible for bikes and pedestrians. Dedicated bus lanes are a lot more flexible. A rail car is probably more efficient than a bus, but a bus is a lot less expensive.

As a cyclist I’d rather take my chances with streetcar rails than with cars. Rails don’t appear from nowhere and hit me.
Post reply on HN