Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

61–70 of 190 posts

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

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latency on that has to be massive.

Why? UAVs are piloted remotely, video games are played remotely with sub-100ms latency. Getting a remote driver connected might a while, but afterwards it seems like a mostly solved (in practice) problem.

I wasn't talking about signal latency, I was talk about the time it took for an operator to sign on and take control.

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

#62
post #57
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No.

Then you wouldn't know if I was completely incorrect or not.

I do because I know self driving companies have talked about how remote operations work. It doesn’t involve taking control of the vehicle.

Here’s a Waymo engineer explaining how they can’t joystick a car: https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/s/2ujFLZoLbo

And here is Zoox’s video about their teleoperations: https://youtu.be/NKQHuutVx78?si=4PDnG0gQm6lEnp9v

No reason to believe Cruise is doing any different. If you have evidence of the contrary, please share it.

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

#63
post #36

> 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…

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…

We have become so desensitized to human deaths due to cars even though those numbers are higher than violent acts of terrorism et al that actually kill far fewer people each year.

Many people have to be killed AT ONCE for it to be news worthy these days.

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

#64
post #62
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you wouldn't know if I was completely incorrect or not.

I do because I know self driving companies have talked about how remote operations work. It doesn’t involve taking control of the vehicle. Here’s a Waymo engineer explaining how they can’t joystick a car: https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/s/2ujFLZoLbo And here is Zoox’s video about their teleoperations: https://youtu.be/NKQHuutVx78?si=4PDnG0gQm6lEnp9v No reason to believe Cruise is doing any different. If you…

So you are 100% certain that remote operators can not take over the car?

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

#65
post #64
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do because I know self driving companies have talked about how remote operations work. It doesn’t involve taking control of the vehicle. Here’s a Waymo engineer explaining how they can’t joystick a car: https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/s/2ujFLZoLbo And here is Zoox’s video about their teleoperations: https://youtu.be/NKQHuutVx78?si=4PDnG0gQm6lEnp9v No reason to believe Cruise is doing any different. If you…

So you are 100% certain that remote operators can not take over the car?

Based on what I know, yes. Why would they want to do it with the latencies involved? It’s not a reliable solution, so it’s not used in any safety critical path.

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

#66
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…

Keep it up, Kyle! All new tech will have hiccups and opposition. Really enjoyed my ride experience when I visited SF.

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

#67
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…

Huge cojones on the CEO to risk public statements given the enormous legal and regulatory pressure being applied. I certainly wouldn’t recommend this tactic!

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

#68
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…

"The stat quoted by nyt is how frequently the AVs initiate an RA session. Of those, many are resolved by the AV itself before the human even looks at things, since we often have the AV initiate proactively and before it is certain it will need help."

Hoo boy, sure wish the NYT had clarified that. That changes things significantly.

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

#69
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…

Thanks for the clarifying! This makes a lot of sense. I think NYT did a really poor job of explaining the remote assistance bit.

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

#70
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…

>> 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.

Funny, since I thought full autonomy was the goal of the company. 2 percent human intervention isn't scalable.

Post reply on HN