5 ms·

I don't understand why everyone keeps pretending there's a smooth continuum: "He says they contain GM’s road map to autonomy, starting with “Driver in charge” i

by zellyn 11y ago

I don't understand why everyone keeps pretending there's a smooth continuum: "He says they contain GM’s road map to autonomy, starting with “Driver in charge” in 2010, progressing to “Driver mostly in charge” this year, to “Car mostly in charge” in 2020, and finally “Car in charge” in 2025." That just doesn't make sense. To my mind, there's "cruise control" as it exists today, and "car drives itself completely and safely even in adverse conditions". Pretending that it's safe to suddenly hand over to the human in an emergency is just crazy.

zellyn 11y ago
Honestly, I think it's because the auto makers are completely out of their depth when it comes to machine learning, and are either pretending they're not while they get their act together, or pretending they're not while the ship slowly sinks…
- mc32 11y ago
  Why wouldn't a GM, VW, Toyota work as they always have and work with partners with experience in that space? Google gets the eyeballs because it's the darling, but there are lots of companies working on lots of advanced and dull things under the radar. There is no reason why these behemoth multinationals can't use third party tech just as google, apple and amazon do for many of their products. It's not as if all these new entrants are taking Ford's erstwhile philosophy of building everything inhouse. Rather tbey cobble lots of things from different sources together.
melling 11y ago
Where does Tesla's autopilot fit "in your mind?" I doubt if Telsa is done. More hardware and software will be in future cars, but we probably won't have your final vision for several years.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
slacka 11y ago
> To my mind, there's "cruise control" as it exists today, and "car drives itself completely and safely even in adverse conditions". Pretending that it's safe to suddenly hand over to the human in an emergency is just crazy. Fine but where do you draw the line? Is it still safe if "cruise control" adds speed matching, steering, lane changing, or braking? As far as safety today, when I'm on the highway, I'd rather have a Telsa on autopilot than a human driving behind me. Pretending that it's safe or not is an issue for 2025 cars technology as there are no cars on the road that "drive itself completely and safely even in adverse conditions". Not even Google's self-driving cars are there yet. They still don't drive on in inclement weather and have a professional driver monitoring them at all times.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  > Is it still safe if "cruise control" adds speed matching, steering, lane changing, or braking? That ship sailed years ago. Even in the 2015 model year (mid-2014 release) all of those features are available. My car does speed matching, minor steering to keep you in the lane (at highway speeds), and auto-braking (both for auto cruise control and for collision avoidance). It works fine.
  - noja 11y ago
    and on your car, if it does any of those things wrong, and you don't correct it (because you are paying less attention, and reacting quick enough would be an impossibility), who is to blame?
    - Someone1234 11y ago
      Legally me. But I suppose I could sue the manufacturer.
    - ghaff 11y ago
      We're rapidly heading toward this very "interesting" time where cars will have (indeed, some high-end cars are very close today) assistive systems, especially for highway driving, that really don't require drivers to pay much attention. It is absolutely guaranteed that people will start reading books and watching movies when they're nominally driving even though they're legally responsible. The manufacturers will fall back on the "these are only assistive systems." It says so in bold type in the user manual.
Shivetya 11y ago
Well with technology available as it is today I think Google is going to find building the car is more difficult than creating the technology. See its not just GM looking to do this, almost every make of components for cars is into this space so a solution is already in the pipe. however when it comes to delivering cars that people want; not what government agencies might be coerced into buying; google doesn't stand a chance.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  They could license the tech. Car manufacturing isn't really an exciting business to be in.
  - kmkemp 11y ago
    I fear the day that google has broken the political barriers and car manufacturers release different software that turns into headlines of automated car crashes. I sincerely hope that google's software is licensed at a reasonable rate such that every car manufacturer will use it.
    - lukeschlather 11y ago
      I've never trusted Google's technology with my life. (Never had occasion to.) I've trusted every car manufacturer's technology with my life at one point or another. I'm not betting on Google having a better safety record. They can learn, but dealing with physically dangerous situations is a new area for them.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      I think politically that the driver assist systems that are in millions of cars already are at least as big a contribution as the research projects.
- swypych 11y ago
  I agree. Supply chain management, government, warranty, unions (UAW), this is not an easy industry to operate within.
akgerber 11y ago
Detroit is a little more willing to build killing people into its business model. Hence the 30,000+ death toll on the roads for the past century, their big push in the 1990s to replace lightweight cars with big heavy SUVs, and their present push to build big automated distraction screens into the middle of cars.
- mc32 11y ago
  Are you saying the US car industry is more willing than European, Japanese, Chinese and Indian auto manufacturers in producing cars which are marginally more dangerous, on the whole? I think you are overstating your case. They all provide as much as their market demand. So, in some markets you see fewer safety features (see south African auto market)
- kazinator 11y ago
  SUVs probably do a better job of protecting the driver and passengers in a collision, and are no more efficient at killing non-motorists than "light weight". You can easily be mowed down by a Smart Fortwo.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
hristov 11y ago
I have tried the Tesla autopilot and completely agree with you. The tesla cruise control is very good at controlling the speed and the brakes, but once you give it control of the wheel it gets very dangerous. The car is prone to making a sharp turn towards the curb and then beeping and handing control back over to you.

by zellyn 11y ago

zellyn 11y ago

Honestly, I think it's because the auto makers are completely out of their depth when it comes to machine learning, and are either pretending they're not while they get their act together, or pretending they're not while the ship slowly sinks…

mc32 11y ago
Why wouldn't a GM, VW, Toyota work as they always have and work with partners with experience in that space? Google gets the eyeballs because it's the darling, but there are lots of companies working on lots of advanced and dull things under the radar. There is no reason why these behemoth multinationals can't use third party tech just as google, apple and amazon do for many of their products. It's not as if all these new entrants are taking Ford's erstwhile philosophy of building everything inhouse. Rather tbey cobble lots of things from different sources together.

melling 11y ago

Where does Tesla's autopilot fit "in your mind?" I doubt if Telsa is done. More hardware and software will be in future cars, but we probably won't have your final vision for several years.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

slacka 11y ago

> To my mind, there's "cruise control" as it exists today, and "car drives itself completely and safely even in adverse conditions". Pretending that it's safe to suddenly hand over to the human in an emergency is just crazy. Fine but where do you draw the line? Is it still safe if "cruise control" adds speed matching, steering, lane changing, or braking? As far as safety today, when I'm on the highway, I'd rather have a Telsa on autopilot than a human driving behind me. Pretending that it's safe or not is an issue for 2025 cars technology as there are no cars on the road that "drive itself completely and safely even in adverse conditions". Not even Google's self-driving cars are there yet. They still don't drive on in inclement weather and have a professional driver monitoring them at all times.

Someone1234 11y ago
> Is it still safe if "cruise control" adds speed matching, steering, lane changing, or braking? That ship sailed years ago. Even in the 2015 model year (mid-2014 release) all of those features are available. My car does speed matching, minor steering to keep you in the lane (at highway speeds), and auto-braking (both for auto cruise control and for collision avoidance). It works fine.
- noja 11y ago
  and on your car, if it does any of those things wrong, and you don't correct it (because you are paying less attention, and reacting quick enough would be an impossibility), who is to blame?
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    Legally me. But I suppose I could sue the manufacturer.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    We're rapidly heading toward this very "interesting" time where cars will have (indeed, some high-end cars are very close today) assistive systems, especially for highway driving, that really don't require drivers to pay much attention. It is absolutely guaranteed that people will start reading books and watching movies when they're nominally driving even though they're legally responsible. The manufacturers will fall back on the "these are only assistive systems." It says so in bold type in the user manual.

Shivetya 11y ago

Well with technology available as it is today I think Google is going to find building the car is more difficult than creating the technology. See its not just GM looking to do this, almost every make of components for cars is into this space so a solution is already in the pipe. however when it comes to delivering cars that people want; not what government agencies might be coerced into buying; google doesn't stand a chance.

maxerickson 11y ago
They could license the tech. Car manufacturing isn't really an exciting business to be in.
- kmkemp 11y ago
  I fear the day that google has broken the political barriers and car manufacturers release different software that turns into headlines of automated car crashes. I sincerely hope that google's software is licensed at a reasonable rate such that every car manufacturer will use it.
  - lukeschlather 11y ago
    I've never trusted Google's technology with my life. (Never had occasion to.) I've trusted every car manufacturer's technology with my life at one point or another. I'm not betting on Google having a better safety record. They can learn, but dealing with physically dangerous situations is a new area for them.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    I think politically that the driver assist systems that are in millions of cars already are at least as big a contribution as the research projects.
swypych 11y ago
I agree. Supply chain management, government, warranty, unions (UAW), this is not an easy industry to operate within.

akgerber 11y ago

Detroit is a little more willing to build killing people into its business model. Hence the 30,000+ death toll on the roads for the past century, their big push in the 1990s to replace lightweight cars with big heavy SUVs, and their present push to build big automated distraction screens into the middle of cars.

mc32 11y ago
Are you saying the US car industry is more willing than European, Japanese, Chinese and Indian auto manufacturers in producing cars which are marginally more dangerous, on the whole? I think you are overstating your case. They all provide as much as their market demand. So, in some markets you see fewer safety features (see south African auto market)
kazinator 11y ago
SUVs probably do a better job of protecting the driver and passengers in a collision, and are no more efficient at killing non-motorists than "light weight". You can easily be mowed down by a Smart Fortwo.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

hristov 11y ago

I have tried the Tesla autopilot and completely agree with you. The tesla cruise control is very good at controlling the speed and the brakes, but once you give it control of the wheel it gets very dangerous. The car is prone to making a sharp turn towards the curb and then beeping and handing control back over to you.