U.S. to decide soon on GM's request to deploy cars without steering wheels
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.
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're viewing a single thread.
I don't understand how cars would work on their own with no input from a driver small-scale
I understand being able to type in "Drive to Walmart" and it can back out of your driveway and go to Walmart, but then what? It goes into the parking lot? It finds the first available space? What if you just wanted to go there to pick something up curbside? How can you tell it to go to a specific stall? What if you're disabled and need to go to the handicap space? How can it tell if your authorized to use that space?
There's so many little nuances that I don't understand not being able to have a steering wheel to take control of and manually do things at some point.
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)
I am not getting into that machine. It's going to have some metldown and lock me in until I sign up for GM premium then catch on fire.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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"?
I don't think so. This particular Cruise is a robo-taxi (source), not a fully-autonomous (level 5, or at least 4) personal vehicle. And other projects claiming level 4 seem to be more of a public transit thing.
Please go back to reddit if you want to pontificate
Back in the 80s or 90s GM (specifically Buick) teased a car with no steering wheel. It instead used joysticks. I’m curious if GM is basically thinking of that. Something more motor friendly, but joysticks also free up space for either more electronics (bad idea) or more safety equipment. The other thing people forget about is that a steering wheel is a giant spear aimed at drivers in a collision. We’ve gotten better about breakaway systems and shears, but it’s another point of injury and failure. The more enclosed a cabin the better. Anyways, all this to say that it might be that direction that GM is thinking and not a fully no input vehicle. It could also be a fleet based vehicle that only drives on main roads which effectively makes it a train that follows a “digital track” and doesn’t allow for nuance and is built for taxi service.
You just made me realize that we created a disconnect between the driver input and the car response on most thing except for the steering that for whatever reason is still a physical column down to the direction.
At this point electronic joystick and steerings are ancient in the PC gaming space, I don't see why that physical link is still required.
Infiniti on the Q50 released the first “direct adaptive steering” which was fancy marketing for steer by wire where no column was supposed to be present. This made it so consumers still had the same feeling, but it allowed for cool things like not having a rod aimed at your body, closed up another point of egress into the cabin for critters and water, and also gave you the ability to have it account for road undulations and wind so if you held the wheel straight even on a windy day it would adapt and steer straight. People however freaked out about steering not having a physical link and so Infiniti added in a column that would effectively reconnect if for some reason the steering ever stopped working. But it ruined the idea behind it. Anyways, consumers are kind of what holds us back. We all think of things having to be done a certain way without realizing there could be better ways of doing something. Side mounted joysticks, like a plane, would allow for people without legs for instance to drive cars. People with fine motor skills could be more precise and software could account for a shake in their hands.
A few companies are starting to experiment with brake by wire and throttle pedals haven’t been physically cable linked for decades at this point. Why do we still have steering wheels like that?
Not saying alternatives to steering are a bad thing, but there is also an issue of feedback and customer expectations. People like what they know/are used to. That’s why EVs had to add a lurch option and additional sounds. It throws people off mentally when part of the standard experience is missing.
Joysticks in theory would be an improvement, but let’s be honest you’d basically have to retrain people on how to drive it. Just a person gets additional training even to drive a forklift. And let’s be honest even if mandated not everyone would, and there would be wrecks. Not counting because of the learning curve it’d sell less, and it’d get bad press for every wreck.
I suspect the general consumer would be willing to hand control over fully, than have to spend extra to relearn how to drive their vehicle. We’ve been trained that self driving cars are the future for multiple decades now.
Because the opportunity and severity of failure of the physical steering wheel is an order of magnitude or more greater than any other system that has been replaced by electronic systems in most cars.
I would argue that steerings are already fully electronically controlled in self-driving cars or have been partially controlled for a while now in traction control systems.
Putting cars aside, most large aircrafts are fly-by-wire and are really reliable in that regard.
We trust our lives to wires all the time, brakes, acceleration, airplane controls, elevators. This is no different, you just put in enough redundancy to make failures safe
I've got an idea, how about we put that sort of control on a submarine?
I think some sort of joystick would be a great solution. Maybe over 15mph it gets disabled and autopilot takes over to take you to your destination (i.e. Walmart parking lot) and then when it slows down the joystick can be used to direct the car to where you want to park.
I can see a joystick becoming dangerous at high speeds though, which is maybe why they have stuck to steering wheels.
Joysticks don't take much to accidentally push forward or ya k back on, suddenly speeding up or stopping your vehicle, or if a kid or a pet starts misbehaving and knocks it to the side.
I think a rotary knob will be more intuitive than a joystick. Input is fuctionally the same as a steering wheel, and more likely to require less specialized training and adjustment.
With a joystick you can get rid of the gas and brake pedals though, with forward and backward movement. A knob would require the pedals to remain I imagine.
Of course. But I think id much prefer steering and acceleration to be decoupled
I guarantee they have an app
That will require a subscription.
Exactly. Even if this car was 100% fully capable of self-driving, I would want the wheel to do the little final inputs like you describe. I can talk to my computer and have it do things, but I haven't ditched my keyboard.