211
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

Cruise CEO says SF ‘should be rolling out the red carpet’ for robotaxis, threatens to maybe leave town::In his first major public interview since the DMV cut their San Francisco fleet in half, Cruise CEO Kyle Vogt said “we cannot expect perfection” from the self-driving cars, and vaguely threatened to leave town if regulators curtail them any further.

all 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 131 points 1 year ago

If a company can't make a profit without making citizens lives worse, they should be encouraged to leave.

[-] xenomor@lemmy.world 106 points 1 year ago

Please, please, please leave town.

[-] arin@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago

Cruise already creating huge traffic deadlocks in Texas as their cars stop in the middle of the intersections

[-] EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Where do they operate in Texas? I go all over the state regularly, but I don't usually go to the downtown areas where I would probably encounter one.

[-] scytale@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

Downtown Austin. I bet if they leave SF, they'll move their entire fleet to Austin, which is terrible news.

[-] DoomBot5@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Now I'm imagining a giant caravan of self driving cars going down the interstate. Known how well they perform, we'll see them either blocking the left lane, or all lanes.

[-] chakan2@lemmy.world 97 points 1 year ago

You MUST DEMAND perfection from self driving cars. Mistakes cost lives.

Fuck this guy.

[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 44 points 1 year ago

I don't know about "perfection", but we should at least aim to be better than most human drivers.

I'd be comfortable holding robot drivers to the same standard as human drivers if there were similar levels of accountability. That said, I think the current standards for licensing human drivers are far too low. Tons of people on the road are simply not capable of driving safely, consistently, and legally. I would support measures to raise the bar for human drivers as well, but since that is extremely unlikely, we can at least establish better standards for the future.

[-] Rolder@reddthat.com 14 points 1 year ago

Just hold the CEO directly liable for any deaths or injuries. Like someone gets hit? That’s a reckless driving charge for the CEO. They would get perfect real quick.

[-] PHLAK@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately that's not how software development works.

[-] Rolder@reddthat.com 7 points 1 year ago

I’m aware, the idea was more tongue in cheek then anything

[-] LufyCZ@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Fortunately that's not how software development works

[-] Psythik@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

As a pedestrian, I'd sooner trust a self-driving car to ID and stop for me than I'd trust a human to do the same. Humans make way more mistakes than these cars do. It just doesn't make the news when humans fuck up cause we do it all the damn time. But accidents are so rare for self-driving cars that every time one happens, it makes headlines, and then a bunch of idiots show up in the comments to throw shade at them when they're much worse drivers themselves.

And then more idiots show up and upvote them.

[-] DeadlineX@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Yeah a lot of people drive selfishly and dangerously. Until we get alternative transportation, however, more stringent licensing will just condemn poorer folks to worse poverty and possibly being cast to the streets.

We need better public transportation before we can cripple people’s ability to get where they need to be. Including work.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Perfection right out of the gate is impossible, but I think SF is too big for these kinds of tests. Use smaller towns if anything

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 8 points 1 year ago

As the other guy said. Demanding perfection is insane - we don't demand that from human drivers either. As long as it's better than humans (preferably by a long shot), I'm all in favour.

[-] chakan2@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We demand perfection in a lot of fields, and we are a hell of a lot closer to it than the wild west of AI alphas we have driving around.

Aviation, Medical, Space Travel...etc...

We can get to extreme levels of quality when lives are at risk. Driverless cars put lives at risk.

Humans are a terribly low bar to use for a quality measure. Also, a human will (usually) do it's best to mitigate damage in am accident

In the case of Tesla...fuck it...I'm going through that parked semi at 80mph.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 0 points 1 year ago

None of those fields have achieved perfection. Airplanes crash, people die in hospitals and space shuttles. If anything, computer assistance has managed to make those safer than before.

If (when) robotcars are safer than human drivers, less people will die in traffic accidents. It's not a perfect bar to settle on, but it's better then the current standard.

Again, denying improvements, because it's less than perfect is just insane.

[-] chakan2@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Denying "improvements" that cost innocent bystanders their life is the only responsible choice.

I was game for the great experiment 10 years ago. But the tech just hasn't gotten better, and arguably is worse today.

It's time to say enough is enough and restrict driverless tech to controlled areas.

Being simply better than the average human isn't enough here.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 points 1 year ago

I never said better than the average driver, I said better than human drivers (preferably by a long shot).

So let's say that means... Better than 90% of all drivers. That isn't going to cost lives, it's going to save them. Not to mention improve traffic flow.

[-] chakan2@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Unlikely...to make an AI car safer than 90% than human drivers means it will respect the speed limit.

That alone causes traffic jams and unsafe conditions around the car as people try to get around it.

A human driver will somewhat go with the flow of traffic.

An AI vehicle just won't work until it's a nearly perfect driver that can make human decisions.

That's not going to happen for a long time. Musk, with his revolving door of low cost engineers is actually making it all worse.

Pull the plug on this experiment and put it back on the test track.

[-] supercriticalcheese@feddit.it 3 points 1 year ago

We don't even know if they are better than humans in an actual driving environment that is more challenging higher speed roads etc...

It is insane to think the slow speed tests are representative of the entire possible scenarios. Or they might fail in driving in things like roundabouts or merging into motorways much more often than humans or who knows what edge cases.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 2 points 1 year ago

I agree. That will need to be proven. But when they are better than, say 90% of all drivers, it would make sense to switch. Waiting until they're "perfect" (which is the requirement I object to), is just wasting needless lives.

[-] supercriticalcheese@feddit.it 1 points 1 year ago

Depends on what happens when they make errors. Is it comparable to human errors or are they prone to making worse mistakes than humans on average in terms of the conseguences.

They might be 99.99% perfect but in 0.01% of cases cause massive car pileups in motorways (for example) due to reasons.

A proper risk analysis based on a controlled transition would be better to be done first.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Yups, fully agreed.

When it all comes down to I'd much rather have the mass pileup you describe once every few years (which can then be analysed and remedied due to the telemetry involved), than the over 3000 traffic deaths a day we have now.

[-] Darkard@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

He already tried the leave but someone had put a cone on the front of the car and it refused to move

[-] Lemonparty@lemm.ee 61 points 1 year ago

and vaguely threatened to leave town.

Don't threaten me with a good time!

[-] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 42 points 1 year ago

Tech CEOs are the most deluded, self-aggrandizing, and entitled people on the planet. The only thing that separates them from ideas guys on modding forums is that they had mommy and daddy's money.

[-] Mikelius@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

And bullshit their way to acquire VC funds for years.

[-] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 41 points 1 year ago

if they roll out red carpets, the cars won't recognize it and refuse to drive

[-] hark@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

Typical tech company arrogance. They think they're single-handedly saving the world and that their genius is never appreciated enough. The same sort of garbage thinking espoused by ayn rand where supposedly society would fall apart without these so-called geniuses.

[-] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago
[-] WaltJRimmer@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

I don't really know how you can threaten someone when you need them more than they need you.

If you leave town, where are you going to go? The city doesn't need you. If you're not making what you want/need here, go ahead, leave, the city won't be hurt by it. You will, though. Because you'll have to pack up your business, set it up somewhere else, and hope that they do the things you want them to. It'll be expensive for you, won't mean a thing to the city.

So how is it a threat?

[-] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 1 year ago

"threatened to maybe leave"

if your threat contains a maybe, it's not a threat

[-] ericisshort@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

That isn’t a rule at all. People in the mafia notoriously make vague threats containing words like maybe that should absolutely be taken as threats.

[-] iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

So you have a bunch of 3,000 lb autonomous missiles cruising around town and you think we shouldn't accept perfection? Lmao

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If they keep up the conceited attitude of taking this for granted I wouldn't be surprised to see SF local elections going to whichever candidate promises to be tougher on robo taxi betas roaming a city of 3.3 million, then where will your red cerpet be? The residents already hate you.

[-] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago
[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago

Don't talk about it, be about it.

[-] lowered_lifted@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

Oh no heaven forfend they take their heavy roadblocks out of narrow SF streets

[-] Rooty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
211 points (96.1% liked)

Technology

59205 readers
2519 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS