9 ms·
GM to Shut Down Ultra Cruise
- ramesh31 3y agoOnce again, George was right. Self driving will be solved with vision alone, or it will never be solved. And solving for vision means solving for AGI.
- lorstic 3y agoVision-only is very very very far behind other techniques. Cruise (the self driving company, not OP) was killed by an overzealous CEO, not by their chosen technique. Waymo drives great in SF.
- wewtyflakes 3y ago+1 for Waymo; it feels safe and I have seen it navigate tricky road situations to my surprise.
- ramesh31 3y ago>Cruise (the self driving company, not OP) was killed by an overzealous CEO, not by their chosen technique. Waymo drives great in SF. Cruise is dead regardless of how you spin it. And Waymo will continue to piddle around SF with their $500,000 frankenstein cars until eternity. Meanwhile Tesla and Comma (both pure vision) are the only operational L3 systems being used every day by regular people to drive millions of miles. The legacy manufacturers will end up licensing one or the other, a la Android/iOS.
- ra7 3y agoYou’re wrong on most counts. 1. Waymo costs around $120,000 and the cost is rapidly dropping with new hardware generations and vehicle platforms. They’re in LA, soon in Austin, airport rides in Phoenix and imminent highway driving. 2. Tesla and Comma are only L2, not even L3.
- lorstic 3y ago> Waymo will coninue piddling around SF with their $500,000 cars until eternity And Phoenix, and very soon LA, and very soon Austin. They're expanding, not staying in one spot for eternity. > Meanwhile Tesla and Comma (both pure vision) are the only operational L3 systems being used every day by regular people to drive millions of miles. What a coincidence, because L2 (what Tesla actually is) to L4 self driving are millions of miles away from each other.
- gibolt 3y agoTesla is legally Level 2, but has done 500 million miles of driving, with the 'driver' acting as supervisor. The race is on, and if Tesla can fix a large number of small issue, they'll be able to do a massive global rollout fairly rapidly.
- lorstic 3y agoIsn't it concerning that Tesla has 500 million miles of driving and is still L2, when Waymo is at 20 million and they're at L4? Maybe Tesla's approach isn't the way to go.
- gibolt 3y agoThe company decides the level. Tesla's approach is to get more real-world training data to reach a general solution, while Waymo goes slow with pre-mapping as a requirement. Tesla's approach will likely be the winner long-term and can be flipped on globally far faster than Waymo's could
- ra7 3y agoEveryone’s working on a general solution, including Waymo. Everyone has large real world (and even larger simulated) training data. It’s not just Tesla despite what is widely claimed in Tesla circles. Others just choose to deploy in certain places because of market, operational and safety reasons. This notion of Tesla just ingesting training data which magically outputs a general self driving solution is nonsense. The levels aren’t just slapped on by the companies for vanity. They indicate liability and therefore capability.
- MobileVet 3y agoTesla is Level 2. Too many sources to cite but here is Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot
- fragmede 3y agoVision-only is stupid. I can't see through fog and have a tough time with glare and can't see in the dark. Other technologies aren't subject to the same limitations. Don't we want these things to be better at driving than humans?
- lopkeny12ko 3y agoYou say vision-only is stupid, but Tesla FSD is the only full self-driving system deployed to millions of drivers and usable anywhere in the world, right now, at scale. > Don't we want these things to be better at driving than humans? Sure we do. Your options are, a as-good-as-a-human-driver for 1 unit of cost, or a better-than-human-driver at 1000 units of cost. Realistically, which do you pick? Other tech like Waymo is good. They drive well. But it's not scalable--expensive mapping and hundreds of thousands of lines of code written to address the nuances of whatever city they specialize the solution to. Not to mention that they only operate in cities with sunny weather all year round!
- iknowstuff 3y agoCue the Mercedes apologists pointing out their „L3” system that can be used on a handful of stretches of nevada freeways, below 30mph, only when there’s a car leading directly ahead, and only when there’s little road curvature. But hey bragging rights. Good luck finding non-press videos of it in action
- gscho 3y agoWho is George?
- LegitShady 3y agoGeorge Hotz. Niche celebrity hackerman. Comma.ai self driving car stuff with cameras only. In an interview some years ago (I think it was lex friedman) he was asked about Tesla and their radars etc and he said he thinks the future of self driving cars is vision only.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Waterluvian 3y agoVision is necessary but lidar and other sensor types are probably going to be a powerful supplement. One can possibly compensate for an inferior “brain” by having more kinds of data to discern meaning from.
- LegitShady 3y agoGeorge Hotz take was that vision alone could be trained to get to human or near human driving ability, but that the sensor fusion part was confusing the machine learning and much harder to get to that level. Maybe he'll be wrong in the future but for now even Tesla seems to have pulled the radar stuff from their cars.
- Waterluvian 3y agoYeah, we don’t know yet. Maybe in the future! But Tesla or anyone else pulling radar stuff doesn’t really suggest he’s right. Until any of them succeed, it doesn’t mean much.
- LegitShady 3y agoTo some degree it is an expert opinion. Opinions can change or be wrong but they still have some noteworthiness
- ra7 3y agoMust be why his Comma.ai product is still relegated to hands-free lane keeping.
- adrr 3y agoAre there any vision only self driving cars on the road?
- yellow_postit 3y agoSelf driving is going the way of fusion power. Always just a couple years away. I still believe divided highway trucking between major cities with last mile handoff to humans has legs, but I wonder how much the Tesla claims have poisoned the proverbial well of a more constrained system for the foreseeable future.
- neaden 3y agoThat just seems like a train to be honest, and runs into the same problems of who is going to pay for the infrastructure and handle priority.
- crazygringo 3y agoTrains are nowhere near as flexible. There simply aren't tracks going to and from every truck's origin and destination. It's not a replacement. I don't think divided lanes are required either. The problems with self-driving trucking aren't about following the lane.
- jessriedel 3y ago1. Waymo works great. It's safer than humans within its operating regime, and that regime is more than enough to make a profitable taxi service. As they collect more data, the regime expands. 2. Cruise is in the corporate penalty box for being dishonest in withholding video data from the state of CA, but that was a stupid PR move. It doesn't tell us anything about the tech, which in fact is strong.
- tahoeskibum 3y agoI use Tesla FSD everyday. It is not a robotaxi yet, but it makes a big difference in day to day life. I can do most drives without disengagement. To be clear, it needs to get 100x better for robotaxi. But even with its beta flakiness, it is magical.
- tw04 3y ago
- eruleman 3y agoThis is not to be confused with Cruise the company. Super cruise is a feature in GM cars.
- dheera 3y agoDoes this mean people who already have Super Cruise will have it no longer work? If so I think it is unethical and false advertising to have a feature removed from something someone already owns.
- ado__dev 3y agoNo Super Cruise is different. The blog post explains the difference between the two. Super Cruise - Hands free driving on highways Ultra Cruise - Hands free self driving cars almost anywhere Ultra Cruise was never released.
- ra7 3y agoNo, this is Ultra Cruise. It was GM’s competitor to Tesla FSD on city streets. Cruise (GM’s L4 robotaxi unit) is different from Super Cruise (L2 hands free highway ADAS) is different from Ultra Cruise.
- LeoPanthera 3y agoIt does not mean that. The current product is "Super Cruise", which only works on specified highways that have been pre-mapped. "Ultra Cruise" is, or was going to be, a version of Super Cruise that worked anywhere.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- LightBug1 3y agoMusk led these manufacturers down the garden path ... Do what you do excellently. Learn. Don't follow.
- ado__dev 3y agoNot surprising at all. Self driving cars that can operate safely and make good decisions in almost any space has always been a pipe dream.
- mustacheemperor 3y agoExcept apparently in San Francisco, where I use one as my primary form of non-public transportation.
- thot_experiment 3y agoI gotta say, I was driven on residential streets/stroads from home to restaurant by a Tesla 3 (using vision alone I think? it was fairly recent) in absolutely POURING rain and I was blown away by how good it was. I think it's hard to get a handle on how good this stuff is because it's such a politically charged field now but I have a hard time believing the folks that say it's never gonna happen, or at least not soon, because of technical reasons. Don't get me wrong, I'm on team ban cars and replace every stroad with a light rail corridor and bike paths, but I think self driving cars will be fine in some number of years once the haters calm down. Hard for me to believe we can't achieve better than the average shitty driver level of safety.
- hedgehog 3y agoOne angle is to look at when we expect there to be data showing a new autopilot vehicle is at least equivalently safe to a new non-autopilot vehicle with modern ADAS. I don't think the performance is there yet, hard to tell when it will be.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoThe thing about machine learning is that it can fail very suddenly, in a very unhuman way. So even if self driving works most of the time, it takes a lot of work to address weird edge cases even the most inebriated human would not mess up, that other drivers/pedestrians would not anticipate.
- avs733 3y agoThere’s an entirely different way of looking at this that is perfectly in line with why self driving. Cars have failed several times before… Who is liable? That’s what largely killed prior attempts, especially those using custom built roads. If the car crashes who is liable - the manufacturer, the road builder, or the driver? I think it is telling that the pull back we’re seeing is correlated with early cases in this becoming more salient. Why does this have to be a technical limitation/success (im not saying it is or isn’t) only?