23 ms·

What’s misleading about it? A system that is inherently designed to deal with the unknown, and not rely on hardcoded world info is bound to be much better. And

by jiofih 6y ago

What’s misleading about it? A system that is inherently designed to deal with the unknown, and not rely on hardcoded world info is bound to be much better. And safer.

BoorishBears 6y ago
This is just another misleading claim neither above comment or the article made. Using premapped data doesn't mean the system isn't designed to deal with the unknown... how do you think Super Cruise would be able to function without being able to deal with unknowns? Rather the standard for a working feature that GM has set simply higher than the extremely low standard that Tesla has continously settled for (which is why they originally misapplied Mobileye's LKA sensor suite for Lane Centering and got people killed due to known defects with stationary object handling) Super Cruise requires premapped data as a data point, in abscense of which it reverts to simpler ACC, which it can reliably do. This avoid situations like my Model S test drive in White Plains, NY where the not-a-salesperson had to warn me about a stretch where AP likes to split the difference between the lane and an exit (towards a Jersey barrier) due to poor road conditions. Super Cruise can use mapping data not just to handle something like that, by flag a problem area in advance and let the user take over before the customers become guinea pigs.
- jiofih 6y ago
  Have you tried Super Cruise under the same poor road conditions? You didn’t counter my claim, in fact you reinforced the fact that SC will rely on pre-mapped data for safety. There is no conclusion to be taken anyway, as Tesla has over 3 billion miles driven on Autopilot with a great safety record, vs a mere 5M for Cadillac (AP’s average was 4.5M miles per accident at some point).
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    Maybe you didn't consider the meaning of your own words: > A system that is inherently designed to deal with the unknown, and not rely on hardcoded world info is bound to be much better. This sentence is strongly implying Super Cruise is _not_ inherently designed to deal with the unknown due to the use of hardcoded data" I counter that claim by pointing out that to function at all? it would have to be able to deal with the unknown, the map isn't going to include the most important dynamic element... other drivers. Those will always be unknowns, so the system can handle unknowns. - And for the record, at the point that AP was at 4.5 Million miles, GM had already places 2 or 3 generations of Mobileye's EyeQ hardware in cars (the same hardware exploited for AP1). It never killed anyone by driving them into a firetruck because GM used it as intended. There's a big focus on X miles per accident with AP vs all other cars, but today a base model Corolla will assist a driver in keeping their lane and alert on a drowsy driver who is being over assisted. What articles like this are showing what many have suspected all along, APs does have safety benefits, but the additional convenience features tacked on are not implemented safely. Therefore cars that take a more conservative approach to convenience, by sacrificing some points with people clamoring to try the bleeding edge on public roadways, while maintaining the safety features end up being safer overall.

by jiofih 6y ago

What’s misleading about it? A system that is inherently designed to deal with the unknown, and not rely on hardcoded world info is bound to be much better. And safer.

BoorishBears 6y ago

This is just another misleading claim neither above comment or the article made. Using premapped data doesn't mean the system isn't designed to deal with the unknown... how do you think Super Cruise would be able to function without being able to deal with unknowns? Rather the standard for a working feature that GM has set simply higher than the extremely low standard that Tesla has continously settled for (which is why they originally misapplied Mobileye's LKA sensor suite for Lane Centering and got people killed due to known defects with stationary object handling) Super Cruise requires premapped data as a data point, in abscense of which it reverts to simpler ACC, which it can reliably do. This avoid situations like my Model S test drive in White Plains, NY where the not-a-salesperson had to warn me about a stretch where AP likes to split the difference between the lane and an exit (towards a Jersey barrier) due to poor road conditions. Super Cruise can use mapping data not just to handle something like that, by flag a problem area in advance and let the user take over before the customers become guinea pigs.

jiofih 6y ago
Have you tried Super Cruise under the same poor road conditions? You didn’t counter my claim, in fact you reinforced the fact that SC will rely on pre-mapped data for safety. There is no conclusion to be taken anyway, as Tesla has over 3 billion miles driven on Autopilot with a great safety record, vs a mere 5M for Cadillac (AP’s average was 4.5M miles per accident at some point).
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  Maybe you didn't consider the meaning of your own words: > A system that is inherently designed to deal with the unknown, and not rely on hardcoded world info is bound to be much better. This sentence is strongly implying Super Cruise is _not_ inherently designed to deal with the unknown due to the use of hardcoded data" I counter that claim by pointing out that to function at all? it would have to be able to deal with the unknown, the map isn't going to include the most important dynamic element... other drivers. Those will always be unknowns, so the system can handle unknowns. - And for the record, at the point that AP was at 4.5 Million miles, GM had already places 2 or 3 generations of Mobileye's EyeQ hardware in cars (the same hardware exploited for AP1). It never killed anyone by driving them into a firetruck because GM used it as intended. There's a big focus on X miles per accident with AP vs all other cars, but today a base model Corolla will assist a driver in keeping their lane and alert on a drowsy driver who is being over assisted. What articles like this are showing what many have suspected all along, APs does have safety benefits, but the additional convenience features tacked on are not implemented safely. Therefore cars that take a more conservative approach to convenience, by sacrificing some points with people clamoring to try the bleeding edge on public roadways, while maintaining the safety features end up being safer overall.