GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

Post by standardUser » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 7:33 PM UTC

lm28469 wrote: post #601

standardUser wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was 6 years ago. I find it odd for a CEO to talk so cautiously (odd but perhaps refreshing), but I'm certainly not holding anyone accountable for what they said in an interview 6 years ago when it relates to a bleeding edge industry.

Well yes of course accountability clearly isn't a thing at play here, Musk said self driving cars were coming in two years back when I was still studying, that was ~10 years ago... We're still not even close to anything remotely capable of being autonomous, even on sunny straight californian roads... Bring these to switzerland snowy mountain passes or serbian dirt roads lmao > a bleeding edge industry. The only thing…

Post by peanuty1 » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 7:38 PM UTC

dilyevsky wrote: post #52

rmason wrote: post #46

Further proof that General Motors is run the finance types, not car guys. Wonder if they'd sell Cruise back to the founders for say a buck? Sure Cruise could then cut a deal with another auto maker. Maybe even get financing from one?

Cruise burn rate was to the tune of 1B a year as reported by GM. Needs to be someone with very deep pockets to put it mildly

Post by logifail » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 7:42 PM UTC

vel0city wrote: post #551

logifail wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The electric motor I can't imagine its worse to produce than a combustion motor I assumed we're attempting to weigh up keeping an ICE vehicle that already exists - like my 10 year old diesel - vs building building a new EV vehicle and scrapping the old ICE.

Nobody is crushing their ICE and dumping it in the lake when they replace their existing and working ICE with an EV. They're selling/trading in their ICE which someone else will buy and use until it's not worth servicing anymore.

Post by nothercastle » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 7:47 PM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #561

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.

In the book Heat Monboit argues the stats show that when someone "greens" their consumption they also increase it. For example switching to "green" energy meant people stopped thinking about conserving. In the specific case of electric vehicles (and many plug in hybrids) luckily they're such an immense improvement that my guess is that they still have a net benefit. But far from the simple efficiency math, and more l…

Post by delabay » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 7:56 PM UTC

ketzo wrote: post #600

delabay wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Tesla has a software problem, Waymo has a hardware problem" - Andrej Karpathi Is it easier to ramp to 1M vehicles a year and cut BOM costs by 80%, OR, install more GPUs and collect more data?

You pose your comment like the answer is obvious, but I don’t know that it is. If Tesla can solve FSD with only cameras, then yes, their ability to scale is much better than Waymo’s. But that is a stupendously large “if”! I’ve seen the Karpathy quote before, and I think it’s kind of hilarious to compare one company which does X0,000 robotaxi rides per day, to another company which has a robotaxi maybe entering produc…