222
U.S. to decide soon on GM's request to deploy cars without steering wheels (www.autoblog.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
98 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

U.S. to decide soon on GM's request to deploy cars without steering wheels::U.S. regulators will soon decide on a petition filed by General Motors' Cruise self-driving technology unit seeking permission to deploy up to 2,500 self-driving vehicles annually without human controls, a top auto safety official said on Wednesday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Read the article, this isn't talking about consumer-owned vehicles but the Cruise Origin robo-taxi service. They're small autonomous shuttle-style cars.

Basically GM reinvented the bus but made it smaller.

So to answer "How does it park at Walmart" - it takes the passenger to the front and drops them off then continues on its way. I believe the intent/current trials using Bolts have an app similar to Uber, you put in your current location + destination, then it comes and gets you, then drops you off.

Almost 0 value in removing a steering wheel or any kind of input to a consumer-owned car like that, makes some amount of sense for robo-taxis. (They specifically wanted passengers sharing the ride to face eachother to ease safety concerns, and they probably don't want random Joe getting up at the emergency controls and driving it off road)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 15 points 3 years ago (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    I think that's a fairly common reaction, but it's important to remember what you're currently trusting your life to. Right now meat machines made for hunting and finding berries are operating giant death machines at speeds that they didn't evolve to understand, and sometimes that meat machine needs to constantly remind itself to pay attention and not shut down while driving, or to look for children, or to go the right speed, because driving isn't natural for meat machines. Not to mention that they take entire seconds to respond to stimulus (which can be hundreds of yards at speed), and they can only see in one direction at a time. And even if they do everything right, they can have a stroke at any time and kill everyone in their car and the car they hit.

    Compare that to an actual machine, built to pay attention to everything in a full 360° at all times, never drives drunk or drowsy, and has double redundancy to prevent mechanical failure. They always drive at the right speeds, and react to problems within milliseconds.

    Comparing humans to robots, it's honestly a testament to how chaotic driving is that robots didn't take it over a long time ago. But within our lifetimes I guarantee that we'll look at it the same way that we now look at chess. Humans may have been better at one point, but very soon computers will be so much better than us at driving that it's not even a competition. And it's fairly likely that they're already past that point, these GM cars already crash less than the average human driver

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    First off you can knock off that arrogant way of speaking right now. I have been building, repairing, designing automated systems for the past 15 years of my life and none of us call humans meat machines.

    Secondly when you are talking about automation being better what you really mean is the human who wrote the software. Which is often the case is me. Software is dogshit and always has been. A big part of my job is having to explain to process engineers and project managers why I made something less automated not more. Operations needs a way to get out of crisis, this is why you allow manual overrides. Operations also needs to be able to alter process, this is why you separate recipes from functionality. The goal is to enhance the human, not to do something for them. Man on a bicycle metaphor you can read up for yourself.

    I have no idea what double redundancy means. Why don't you explain it exactly? I could use a laugh.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    none of us call humans meat machines.

    I phrased it that way for emphasis, I didn't think that anyone would assume I was trying to use industry lingo when I call humans "meat machines".

    Second, I'm also a developer, I write code for a living, I doubt that's particularly rare on the fediverse. Yes, sometimes I write shitty code, but that shitty code still runs at a million times the speed that I can think, it can be proven for accuracy, and when it has been will make fewer mistakes than I do. There are a lot of things that computers are just better at than we could ever be, regardless of the quality of the code that it's running. There's also a lot of things that humans are great at, I wasn't trying to undermine that fact, I was just trying to emphasize that there's really no reason to think that driving can or should be one of those things. We give teenagers licenses after a week of drivers ed, we get distracted while driving, we drive under the influence of drugs, we fall asleep, we have strokes and heart attacks. Driving is something that we're statisticallyvery bad at.

    Operations needs a way to get out of crisis, this is why you allow manual overrides

    Sure, and there will always be manual overrides, but it won't rely on whatever passenger happens to be sitting in the vehicle (if any), it will be handled by an employee in an operations center. That's what they're doing now, which is why the steering wheel isn't necessary.

    I have no idea what double redundancy means

    Yeah that was a dumb way to phrase that. I apologize for failing to have my lemmy comment properly peer reviewed before posting it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago

    Hey next time try using phrases for accuracy not emphasis. You get taken seriously that way instead of being seen as a troll out of their lane.

    I write code for a living,

    I am sure your Facebook game is very nice.

    Sure, and there will always be manual overrides, but it won’t rely on whatever passenger happens to be sitting in the vehicle (if any), it will be handled by an employee in an operations center.

    Sure just give him a call when it falls into a river or catches on fire. Your call is very important to us, please stay on the line. Doo Doo Doo. Do you know you can get most of your questions answered online?

    Yeah that was a dumb way to phrase that. I apologize for failing to have my lemmy comment properly peer reviewed before posting it

    Just go get a job doing what I do. Spend the next decade and a half automating big scary machines. You will learn a lot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    That is a very optimistic opinion, but I'm sure those GM cars truly are about as close to the fully autonomous vehicle that could fully replace a regular human driven car in its regular setting as ChatGPT is to AGI.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    They already operate on the road without a driver behind the wheel at all, haven't they already "replace[d] a regular human driven car in its regular setting"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •