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

521–530 of 692 posts

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

#521

Post by llamaimperative »

ripjaygn wrote: post #225
llamaimperative wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm, yeah. Maybe I wasn't clear. MB Drive Pilot is designed not to attempt to operate outside of a well-defined domain. It will, by design, not operate in a way that is unsafe or in a context in which it's unsafe. You are arguing the system would perform worse in contexts in which you have not seen it perform (because its designers decided to prevent it from such attempts). What evidence do you have for your argument…

> You are arguing the system would perform worse in contexts in which you have not seen it perform (because its designers decided to prevent it from such attempts). Should we also assume that Mercedes cars can fly better than a plane, because we have not yet seen them fly? What kind of logic is that? In other news, OpenAI has solved AGI last year, but is keeping it a secret because it's too dangerous. I have solved s…

No, but generally you should assume a system with near-100% performance within a well-defined ODD doesn't fall off to near-0% performance immediately adjacent to that ODD.

Here's a better example: let's say by law Mercedes has to restrict their cars from exceeding 80mph. They have a car that can reach 80mph in 2 seconds. Is it therefore credible to claim that the car is actually incapable of driving at 81mph?

Or is it more credible to say, "we don't know much about its performance beyond 80mph, but it can probably achieve something outside of that."

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

#522

Post by llamaimperative »

ivewonyoung wrote: post #215
llamaimperative wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm, yeah. Maybe I wasn't clear. MB Drive Pilot is designed not to attempt to operate outside of a well-defined domain. It will, by design, not operate in a way that is unsafe or in a context in which it's unsafe. You are arguing the system would perform worse in contexts in which you have not seen it perform (because its designers decided to prevent it from such attempts). What evidence do you have for your argument…

> What evidence do you have for your argument? The fact that their software is written only to just follow the car in front, and completely and immediately give up if there's no car in front or one cannot be seen due to it being dark or bad weather, on premapped roads. Meanwhile FSD has repeatedly shown that's it's capable of driving without a car in front. You can watch YouTube videos of FSD driving without a car in…

> What makes you think Mercedes would be better at doing that?

I didn't say they are. You're the only one making assumptions here :)

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

#523

Post by criley2 »

manwe150 wrote: post #477
logifail wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you look at the lifecycle analysis of ICE cars, burning the fuel is the major contributor (Genuine question, not whataboutism...) what about the environmental aspects of manufacturing and distributing a vehicle other than CO2 emissions ? > old and set in their ways I fear I may be approaching this stage myself! :)

I think that analysis might have the “sunk cost fallacy” assumption? Just because we already have the ICE doesn’t make it more efficient to keep using it, over immediately replacing it with something more efficient, as long as you then keep the more efficient thing operating until it becomes inefficient to keep that operational. The crossover point seems likely it would occur much sooner if you replace the ICE now th…

And I think this analysis suffers from ignoring the increased environmental cost of creating a new electric vehicle. It takes 15,000 to 20,000 miles of driving for the average EV to "break even" with new ICE vehicles due to the much worse environmental impact of creation.

Reduce, reuse, repair, recycle. Vehicles should be reduced first (drive less), reused second (keep using existing one), repaired (keep using existing ones), and finally you can recycle as best as possible.

All of this should happen prior to replacement. If you replace an existing ICE with an EV, the EV not only has to catch up with a new ICE, it actually has to "catch up" with your existing already made working ICE that has no new cost for construction. That's much worse than 20k miles because the cost of building your existing car is sunk. It could take as many as 50,000 miles of driving to break even against your existing used car.

Consumerism and early replacement of working goods has always been the mortal enemy of environmentalism.

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

#524

Post by jcgrillo »

7thpower wrote: post #519
jcgrillo wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have absolutely not shifted a goal post. What I believe is immaterial, what's important is that the companies that really know this industry are behaving as if there's no future in robotaxis. That should give you pause.

Which industry are you referring to?

Take a wild guess.

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

#525

Post by ghaff »

saalweachter wrote: post #506
imglorp wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole dealership system is parasitic, rentseeking, friction. Tesla might have a point here. Instead of transparently selling a product for fixed price, the dealer system appears based on information asymmetry, haggling, upcharges, finance bullshit, warranty bullshit, subscription bullshit, and many decades of entrenched psyops culture against customers. On top of that, salespeople are often poorly trained on the…

It's really annoying to me because I would love to just pick a dealership and go there for the rest of my life for all things automotive. I don't like being ripped off but I'm not particularly price sensitive, so I'd love to just show up and pay a reasonable sticker price that was just The Price Everyone Paid and not have this vague haggling system expected, and not have to worry whether I was being ripped because I…

I think service departments are actually pretty profitable for at least ICE dealerships. They certainly put the old college try into introducing you to the service manager even when you've purchased your car in a situation where you're unlikely to use that dealership for service.

My last purchase during the supply chain shortages was actually remarkably stress-free other than not being able to get the car sooner rather than later. I was paying cash. Knew there was almost certainly very little negotiating leverage on the list price. Did a bit of haggling on some "factory-installed" add-ons with a car that hadn't been built yet against my trade-in which I got IMO a good deal on.

The whole thing took me maybe an hour which is hard to complain about for a large purchase. One of the keys is being ready and able to sever the actual purchase from the financing and the trade-in. It's when people really are stretching their financial envelope (which is common) that conflating various aspects of the transaction starts causing a lot of stress.

Of course, it also helps if you've been around the block a few times. OK, if I MUST I'll watch the stupid video about some coating product but know that the answer is no. It's annoying but no more than lots of other things.

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

#526

Post by Workaccount2 »

ethagknight wrote: post #495
rgovostes wrote: post #3

> GM said in a statement that “... an increasingly competitive robotaxi market” were the reasons for the change. Isn't there basically Google/Waymo and then, seemingly much further behind, Tesla Cybertaxi, Amazon/Zoox, and Uber/Yandex? Cruise allegedly has one of the most sophisticated autonomous driving platforms, and GM's Super Cruise (if they share any tech) is comparable to Tesla FSD. Strange that they would bow…

I’ve had a Yukon with supercruise for 18 months. It is fantastic for highway driving, particularly, we’ve driven it west from Tennessee to Colorado and Florida. Other comments claiming it’s the same as other standard driver-assist packages are incorrect. Totally hands free, no “ping pong” with the lanes. That said, when trying to BUY a supercruise vehicle, the sales guys were clueless, I had to review the stat sheets…

From my understanding, super cruise only works on pre-approved roads/road sections, whereas FSD works just about anywhere. When I last checked my commute to work, the main highway I take becomes unsupported half way to work, despite it being the same bland typical highway layout.

I really don't want to buy a Tesla, but from what I can tell, nobody has anything close to what FSD offers.

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

#527

Post by Loudergood »

bluGill wrote: post #219
makestuff wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dealerships also make most of their profit from the service departments which is why they don’t really like EVs. No longer do you need to go in every 3-6 months to get an oil change, belt replacement, spark plugs, etc.

Oil changes are a minority ofincome and the rest is far cars old enough that the owner is going to a third party mechanic.

They're a huge opportunity to upsell though. Especially to people who are likely to get out of warranty work done by the dealer.

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

#528

Post by bayindirh »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #526
ethagknight wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve had a Yukon with supercruise for 18 months. It is fantastic for highway driving, particularly, we’ve driven it west from Tennessee to Colorado and Florida. Other comments claiming it’s the same as other standard driver-assist packages are incorrect. Totally hands free, no “ping pong” with the lanes. That said, when trying to BUY a supercruise vehicle, the sales guys were clueless, I had to review the stat sheets…

From my understanding, super cruise only works on pre-approved roads/road sections, whereas FSD works just about anywhere. When I last checked my commute to work, the main highway I take becomes unsupported half way to work, despite it being the same bland typical highway layout. I really don't want to buy a Tesla, but from what I can tell, nobody has anything close to what FSD offers.

> nobody has anything close to what FSD offers.

From what I read about it, you're absolutely right. Down to the point of unwanted veering towards road dividers and other vehicles.

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

#529

Post by Workaccount2 »

logifail wrote: post #417
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at the lifecycle analysis of ICE cars, burning the fuel is the major contributor. So if you drive an average amount with those cars you're not saving the planet by continuing to drive them. In a well functioning system you'd be selling them on to people who drive very little and are old and set in their ways and replacing them with an EV.

> If you look at the lifecycle analysis of ICE cars, burning the fuel is the major contributor (Genuine question, not whataboutism...) what about the environmental aspects of manufacturing and distributing a vehicle other than CO2 emissions ? > old and set in their ways I fear I may be approaching this stage myself! :)

>he environmental aspects of manufacturing and distributing a vehicle other than CO2 emissions?

The importance of those is a tiny fraction of the importance of CO2 emissions.

A toxic pit full of battery waste the size of a small town will not end life on Earth. An atmosphere full of CO2 will.

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

#530

Post by Workaccount2 »

lucianbr wrote: post #441
Mashimo wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EVs have a way higher initial CO2 footprint. The crossover depends on car and where you get the energy from. I think it's often around the 100 000 km mark where an EV gets the smaller footprint. But like I said, many variables factor in.

Is battery manufacturing that bad for the environment? I mean, ICE cars still have wheels, drivetrains, chassis, doors, windows, chairs, electronics, paint and many other things, same as the EVs. The electric motor I can't imagine its worse to produce than a combustion motor. So that leaves batteries as the cause of this huge disparity on day one, that takes 100,000km of fuel consumption to overtake. Is this with the…

>Is battery manufacturing that bad for the environment?

In any practical sense, no, it's not. Its a dumb argument pushed by people trying to sandbag EVs.

Post reply on HN